
Rnnk . C L 



/ ■ 

THE 

ETYMOLOGIC INTERPRETER; 

OR, 

AN EXPLANATORY AND PRONOUNCING 

DICTIONARY 

OF 

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 

TO WHICH IS PBEFIXED, 

^n StttrofluctiDn, 

CONTAINING 

A FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES 

OF 

ETYMOLOGY AND GRAMMAR, ^a, S^c^c. 



BY JAMES GILCHRIST. 
LONDON : 

SOLD BY R, HUNTER, 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD 
1824. 



^^ 




at 



G. Smallfield, Printer, Hackney, 



PREFACE. 



Having embraced so much variety of state- 
ment in the Introduction, and extended it 
greatly beyond his original intention, the au- 
thor will not detain the reader long with 
prefatory observation. The present work is 
almost wholly different from every other work 
of the kind hitherto published ; but the author 
is not conscious of having been actuated by 
any love of singularity; and he is fiiUy aware 
that peculiarities, however original, may be 
the very reverse of excellencies. He may 
have missed his aim ; but the sole object, the 
governing principle of his laborious under- 
taking, is utility. If there be, throughout his 
work, convincing internal evidence of the 
sincerity of this declaration, and that he has 
spared no labour to accomplish his purpose, 
he is surely entitled to enlightened, consider- 
ate, and candid criticism; and this is all the 
favour he solicits from Reviewers. The nature 



IV PREFACE. 

of his undertaking peculiarly precludes per- 
fection ; and he has been obliged to content 
himself with much lower degrees of excellence 
than would satisfy him if he had any assurance 
of long life and much philologic improvement. 

The plan of the Dictionary will be suffici- 
ently understood by inspection, and therefore 
a description of it in this place is unnecessary. 
Wherever explanation seemed superfluous it 
has not been obtruded; as in the names of 
familiar objects, such as horse^ cow,, house^ &c. 
Every person has a more distinct perception 
of the meaning of such words than can pos- 
sibly be expressed ; and therefore definition or 
explanation is futile. Partly with the view of 
rendering the Dictionary useful to foreigners, 
and partly for the purpose of enabling the 
English to compare their own words with 
those which correspond to them in other lan- 
guages the nearest Latin, Italian, French, and 
German, synonymes are subjoined to the ex- 
planation. Thus, it was thought, foreigners 
might obtain some knowledge of the English 
language, and that English persons might 
obtain some knowledge of other languages. 



PREFACE. V 

When the English language, and others re- 
ferred to, have the same word in common, it 
was not considered necessary to subjoin any 
learned or foreign synonymes. 

For the sake of brevity many contractions 
are employed, such as Ger, for German, It 
for Italian, Ft, for French, Sp. for Spanish, 
Goth, for Gothic : cor, for corruption, con, for 
contraction, &c. &c. It is not expected that 
such contractions will occasion any obscurity 
or perplexity. Partly to avoid expense, and 
partly to accommodate the mere English 
scholar, Greek words are put in large Roman 
capitals, as Latin words are put in small Ro- 
man capitals : thus, ONOMA, Nomen, name. 
Occasionally the author has taken the liberty 
of prefixing the obsolete sign (or sign that a 
word is obsolete) \ to words of Saxon origin, 
though they may not be found in the English 
language : and in quoting Gothic, Saxon, Da- 
nish, Swedish, and Scottish words, (whose 
orthography is very various and uncertain,) 
he has sometimes trusted to his memory with- 
out being absolutely certain as to the most 
correct form of spelling. 



VI PREFACE. 

As the Introduction has preparatory refer- 
ence to the Dictionary, the former should be 
carefully perused before entering on the 
latter. 

It is intended to publish the Dictionaiy in 
four parts : the first part will appear in the 
course of a few months. 



CONTENTS. 



Pag«. 

INTRODUCTION 1 

The Origin of the Alphabet considered i3. 

The Derivation of the English Language considered • 5 

The Anglo-Saxon and Gothic Origin of the English Language 

considered • 10 

ETYMOLOGIC PRELIMINARIES 23 

The Interchanges of the Letters of the Alphabet considered ib. 

Verbal Contraction or Abbreviation considered 39 

Verbal Corruptions considered • . • 43 

Verbal Ellipsis or Syntactic Abbreviation 47 

The Mutations of Verbal Signification considered • • 54 

The different kinds of Mutation in Verbal Signification .... 60 

Verbal Diversities as to Rank or Respectability ..••..•••• 62 

Vocabular Redundancy and Deficiency 70 

Logical Diversities of Verbal Signification • 73 

The Grammatic Distinctions of Words .......•.••• 90 

The Doctrine of Home Tooke examined • ib, 

THE PARTS OF SPEECH CONSIDERED 102 

Interjection • • • • • ib, 

TheArticle 103 

Conjunction •• • •• • 104 

Preposition • 105 

Adverb • • • • • ib. 

Adjective or Attributive •••••• • 106 

Of Pronouns 110 

The Derivation of what are termed English Pronouns • • . • 113 
The Words commonly called Pronouns considered in reference 

to Number, Gender, and Case • 114 

Number ib. 

Gender »•••.♦......•...' 115 

Case 116 



Vlll CONTESi^S. * 

Page. 

The Noun or Substantive • 125 

Case, Gender, and Number, considered in reference to Nouns 132 

Case id. 

Gender • 134 

Number 138 

The Verb 143 

Moods 153 

Tense \. 154 

Auxiliary or Helping Verbs considered • 157 

Irregular Verbs 1 66 

Prefixes and Affixes • • 1 75 

Affixes 184 

Affixes of Adjectives • • ib. 

Affixes of Nouns ......»••..• 188 

AffixesofVerbs 198 

GRAMMAR 200 

Rational Grammar of the English Language • • • • 201 

Arbitrary Grammar • 204 

The Grammar of Pronouns •••••• , i6. 

The Double Forms of Pronouns 205 

The Grammar of Verbs • 210 

Directions concerning the Substantive Verb 220 

Directions concerning the Words called Auxiliaries or Help- 
ing Verbs 223 

Directions concerning Regular Verbs • •• 225 

Directions concerning the Irregular Verbs •• 23 1 

Remarks on the Prepositions 232 

Directions concerning Adjectives • • • • • 235 

Remarks on Composition • • • • 237 

Orthography or Right Spelling 252 

The Orthoepy or Right Pronunciation of the English Lan- 
guage 258 

Directions to the Natives of Scotland in pronouncing the 
English Language* • • • • • 270 



INTRODUCTION. 



THE ORIGIN OF THE ALPHABET CONSIDERED. 

On this obscure subject the reader is promised 
nothing but brevity ; for, after much toilsome inquiry 
and anxious reflection, the author has no satisfactory 
opinion to offer. The modern nations of Europe 
have adopted the alphabet of the Romans ; the 
Romans adopted the alphabet of the Greeks ; the 
alphabet of the Greeks is so similar in all respects 
to that of the Hebrews or Chaldeans, (for the for- 
mer adopted the alphabet of the latter,) as to render 
it almost certain that the one v^as derived from the 
other, or that they had a common origin. Thus far 
all is tolerably clear and satisfactory; but all beyond 
is dark and doubtful. Some persons have believed 
that Hebrew was the first language of man, and 
that the Hebrew alphabet came down from heaven. 
This is a short cut (as Home Tooke terms it) which 
saves much trouble ; for on this hypothesis we have 
only to believe ; — it would be absurd, if not wicked, 
to inquire. 

Admitting, however, that letters are of human in- 
vention, what is the nature of that invention ? Here 
we possess no certain data on which to reason ; for 

B 



we have no authentic history of this important in- 
vention. If the languages of Babylon and Egypt 
remained as entire as those of Greece and Rome, 
they would perhaps supply important documents in 
reference to the obscure subject of our inquiry ; but 
they have long perished from the earth. Being 
wholly destitute of facts, we have nothing better 
than theories or conjectures on which to form an 
opinion. 

The easiest and most obvious method of account- 
ing for the origin of letters seems to be, that they 
were contrived like musical notes to indicate certain 
sounds of human utterance, which sounds had been 
previously employed as signs of thoughts and sensa- 
tions. Upon this supposition, spoken language 
might exist long before the alphabet ; just as music 
existed long before the gamut. The first is to be 
considered as having an existence wholly independ- 
ent of the last, though the former might arrive at a 
degree of perfection, when assisted by the latter, 
which could not have been attained without it 
When letters were thus invented as the signs of 
sounds, they might be employed also for the addi- 
tional purpose of indicating, by similitude, sensible 
objects or their distinguishing properties. 

This method of explaining the origin of letters 
long appeared to the author inadmissible ; but more 
experience and reflection have rendered him less dis- 
satisfied with it. Certainly much may be accom- 
plished in process of time by human ingenuity, with 



very scanty materials and very defective instruments. 
There is not less difference^ probably^ between lan- 
guage as we now find it and what it was in its in- 
fancy, than there is between the largest ship of war 
and the smallest canoe; or between the most splen- 
did palace and the rudest hut. Every person who 
has carefully observed the multitude of v/ords that 
are resolvable into a single verb, noun, or adjective, 
will cease to wonder that the whole of language 
should be resolvable into a few letters, even if these 
letters be considered merely as signs or marks of 
sounds emitted by the mouth of man to intimate his 
thoughts and feelings. 

It would be easy to enlarge on this uncertain sub- 
ject ; and the time was when the author would not 
have dismissed it with a hasty notice ; but there is 
nothing which he so much distrusts as his ingenuity. 
He propounded a peculiar theory some years ago, 
(viz. that the language of signs was prior to the lan- 
guage of sounds,) with more ardour than he could 
possibly display in his present state of mind, even if 
his opinion were the same. That opinion being be- 
fore the public, a re-statement of it in this place (if 
the author were so inclined) is unnecessary. Perhaps 
after all, neither that opinion, nor the conjecture now 
offered, is wholly right. It is possible that the al- 
phabet consisted from its formation of two distinct 
sets of signs ; the one signs of sounds, the other 
signs of ideas. The vowels, with some of the con- 
sonants, were perhaps employed hke musical notes, 

b2 



or the marks in pronouncing dictionaries, merely to 
represent the sounds of the human voice : some of 
the consonants were perhaps invented to represent 
physical objects or their most remarkable properties. 
But we will not detain the reader longer with 
useless conjectures. There is one other inquiry, 
however, of a doubtful character, which seems to 
deserve a slight notice before proceeding to subjects 
of more evidence and greater utility. If the modern 
languages of Europe and the ancient languages of 
Rome and Greece had a common origin with He- 
brew, Which language is the oldest — and is that 
which is the oldest to be considered as the parent of 
the rest? There can hardly be any reasonable doubt 
that as Greek was prior to Latin, so Hebrew was 
prior to Greek ; but it does not follow that the lan- 
guage of Greece was derived from the Hebrew. If 
they both contain many words which are manifestly 
identical, such kind of evidence is much stronger in 
favour of Chaldaic as the parent language ; but even 
this has no internal evidence of being an original 
language. The opinion of the author is, that all the 
ancient languages extant, as well as the modern lan- 
guages of Europe, had a common origin ; but that 
the language from which they were derived has long- 
ceased to exist. 



THE DERIVATION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 
CONSIDERED. 

On this subject^ to a certain extent at least, there 
can be but one opinion among competent judges. 
A great part of the English language is derived from 
Latin and Greek. Many words have been received 
directly from these languages ; many have been re- 
ceived through the Italian, the Spanish, the Portu- 
guese, German, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch ; but 
the far greater proportion have come through the 
medium of the French. 

The causes of the direct entrance of learned terms 
are, the general study of the learned languages ; the 
faciHty with which such terms are applied to the 
various purposes of art, science and philosophy, &c., 
(not to mention a very general disposition in learned 
men to show their learning) ; the application of 
Latin to law, physic, surgery, anatomy, botany, &c. ; 
add to all which, the consideration that it was long 
almost the only written language of Europe : — to 
comprehend all in one sentence, Latin has for many 
hundred years been the learned language of Europe, 
and the terms of the learned are constantly descend- 
ing into and becoming part of the common or ?;er- 
nacular language of every people on the face of the 
earth. It is on this obvious principle that we hope 
to prove, that if not all, nearly all that very part of 



our language which is most confidently received as 
Saxon and Gothic, is, in fact, neither more nor less 
than a corruption of Greek and Latin. 

The reason why many Greek and Latin words 
have been adopted by us, through the medium of 
the Italian, is sufficiently obvious. Rome, even 
when her consuls and emperors were no more, was 
still the seat of empire : an empire of mightier sway 
over the minds and habits and language of the na- 
tions, than ever was the power of the Caesars. From 
other causes, too, Italy was the fountain of influence 
to all parts of Christendom ; for, besides the Catholic 
religion, with its Roman priesthood and Latin tongue, 
science, the productions of arts, and the arts them- 
selves, were thence derived. It was Italy, too, 
that took the lead in vernacular literature : and 
her poets, novelists, historians, and philosophers, 
were as much in advance of those of other modern 
nations, as she was in advance of the rest of Europe 
in arts and manufactures. 

It has been intimated, that the greatest influx of 
Greek and Latin words has been through the channel 
of the French. The causes of this are, evidently, 
the geographical proximity of France and her pre- 
dominant influence in politics, polite literature, and 
fashion; which influence has operated powerfully in 
Europe, and especially in Britain, ever since the 
reign of Charlemagne, and it still acts upon the 
English language very strongly ; for if French terms 
be not brought in by cart-loads, as was said in the 



time of Chaucer, they are very abundantly spread 
over the speeches and writings of a numerous class 
in society, w^ho have sufficient buoyancy to be 
always at the top of fashionable literature. 

About the commencement of our vernacular hter- 
ature, there was, indeed, an extraordinary importatioti 
of French terms ; and the reason is obvious ; for as 
the French borrowed all from the Italian, (which is 
admitted even by Voltaire,) we at that period bor- 
rowed nearly all from the French. But the grand 
cause of the fact in question, was the Conquest. It 
is well known that William of Normandy attempted 
to make French the only language of England ; that 
it was the only language spoken at court, taught in 
schools, employed in statutes, legal forms and plead- 
ings, &c. &c. The inference deducible from these 
facts is abundantly manifest : and that they are facts, 
the author is prepared to establish by a very ample 
collection of historical testimonies, which are with- 
held in this place merely because he deems them 
unnecessary, and because he is unwilling to swell his 
work by superfluous matter. 

It has been intimated above, that some of the 
learned words, of which so much of our language 
consists, were received through the medium of the 
Spanish. The reason of this was the political pre-emi- 
nence and consequent predominant influence which 
Spain at one time possessed. Thus we have duplicates 
and triplicates of many words, which we borrowed 
by turns from the Italians, French, and Spaniards, as 



8 

they respectively happened to be in the political 
ascendant. But there was another cause of the 
influence of the Spanish : it formed a point of con- 
tact or link of connexion with the arts and sciences 
of the Saracens : hence, the portion of Arabic which 
is found in the different languages of Europe ; for 
knowledge has the power not only of forcing a 
passage from more enlightened into less enlightened 
nations, but also of taking with it the very terms in 
which it happens to be contained. The fact is, words 
and thoughts are so mutually adapted, that transla- 
tion is always difficult, and often impossible, so that 
it is less from choice than necessity that a people, 
poor in arts and sciences, borrow not only the im- 
provements, but, to a certain extent, the* language of 
their richer, i. e. more intellectual, more literary, and 
more philosophic neighbours : thus the nations of 
Europe, during the middle or dark ages, borrowed 
largely from the Saracens and the Greeks ; thus the 
Celts, the Goths, the Sarmatians, and even the Per- 
sians, the Arabians, &c. &c., borrowed largely, for 
many ages, from the Greeks and Romans. These 
were the Backwoods -men of Grecian influence and 
the Roman empire : and if those stationary and 
unimprovable animals, the naked savages of Indi- 
ana, already speak a corrupt English, (or Yankee,) it 
cannot surely be thought incredible that the venera- 
ble Gothic (whose origin, Mr. Home Tooke says, is 
buried in the deepest antiquity) should prove, after 
all, with N^ry little, if any exception, a corruption of 



Greek and Latin. As to the Celtic^ indeed^ all the 
world knows that it is nearly as old as the creation ; 
and if not the very language which God put into the 
mouth of Adam^ is, without controversy, that of Go- 
mer, Japheth's eldest son. 

It will be perceived, by inspecting the pages of 
the following Dictionary^ that besides French, Italian, 
and Spanish, including Portuguese; Dutch, German, 
Danish, and Swedish, are to be considered mediums 
through which not a few Greek and Latin words 
have passed into the English language. Such words 
are generally much corrupted and disguised, as all 
Southern terms are in passing through the guttural 
medium of the Gothic organs of speech (the true 
Northern origin of the English language) ; but suffi- 
cient evidence remains of their passing from Greece 
and Italy to England, through Germany and Hol- 
land. The obvious causes of this effect are, geogra- 
phical proximity, national affinity, political alliance, 
(against France, our natural enemy,) religious union, 
(i. e. Protestantism against Popery,) but, above all, 
mercantile intercourse ; for Holland, the Netherlands, 
and the North of Germany, were long, for arts and 
manufactures and merchandise, what Italy had pre- 
viously been to the rest of Europe. 

The reader will perceive that these remarks have no 
direct reference to those words which English, Dutch, 
Danish, German, &c., considered as Anglo-Saxon or 
Gothic, have in common : that question is immedi- 
ately to be considered. It is only necessary to remark 



10 

further herc^ that nothing more than a mere outline 
of statement was intended, free, if possible, from 
reasonable doubt or controversy : the proofs and 
illustrations of the statement are presented in the 
Dictionary ; the peculiar plan of which was adopted 
for this as well as for other important purposes. 



THE ANGLO-SAXON AND GOTHIC ORIGIN OF THE 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONSIDERED. 

It is not without some reluctance that the author 
approaches this question ; because he has both to 
encounter strong prejudice, and to controvert the 
opinions of Mr. Home Tooke; for whose memory 
he entertains the sincerest respect, and for whose 
labours he feels truly grateful. He will not say that 
he would rather be in the wrong with Home Tooke 
than in the right with Harris ; but he considers the 
errors of the one far more interesting, and even 
instructive, than the truths of the other. Many had 
pretended to write philosophically ; but it was re- 
served for the author of " The Diversions of Purley" 
to be the first, at least in this country, to write 
sensibly on the subject of language. If his celebrated 
work be big with promises, which never have been, 
and which, probably, never can be realized ; they 
have internal evidence of proceeding from sincerity. 
But with every disposition to admit the merits of the 



11 

above work^ it certaiiily does contain a considerable 
portion of unsound opinion^ especially in connexion 
with the author's favourite theory of a Northern 
Origin ; in support of which^ ingenious paradox and 
bold assertion are more conspicuous than careful 
inquiry and dispassionate reflection : and the Gothic 
derivations are^ for the most part, not only mere 
assumptions^ but many of them are such as would 
have disgraced Junius or Skinner. 

This, indeed, was perceived by the author of the 
present work, many years ago, when his admiration 
of the '^ Diversions of Purley" was at its height ; for 
though, for a time, a convert to the theory of Mr. 
Home Tooke, he had no faith in many of his etymo- 
logic instances ; and he finds, in the copious extracts 
then made, the mark of interrogation or exclamation 
affixed to such words as the following : — Odd, i. e. 
oived, past part, of owe ; Head, i. e. heaved, past 
part, of heave ; Bread, i. e. brayed, past part, of 
bray ; Wench, from wincian or wink ; Store, from 
stir, &c. &c. 

We had once intended to collect in this place 
all the unsound and absurd etymologies of Home 
Tooke, and confront them with what we deem true 
derivations ; but such a task would be invidious, and 
therefore the reader is referred to the Dictionary. 
It was the unfortunate theory of the Northern Ori- 
gin that misled the acute judgment of the author of 
the Diversions of Purley; for his Greek and Latin 
derivations are as remarkably sound and incontro- 



12 

vertiblc as many of his Gothic derivations arc absurd 
and false. He has certainly done much to rescue 
etymology from the contempt into which it had 
fallen in the hands of preceding etymologists, who 
were, in general, as destitute of a sound understand- 
ing and philosophic spirit, as of good taste and ele- 
gant scholarship ; but he has deliberately and wil- 
fully exposed both himself and his subject to much 
ridicule — a test of truth which he applied very freely 
to others : and if it has been employed sparingly 
against him, such forbearance must be considered as 
a kind of silent homage to his genius and talents. 
His Gothic partialities and prejudices, connected as 
they were with a particular theory and a political 
bias, are easily accounted for ; but they are, neverthe- 
less, unworthy of his understanding and inconsistent 
with the philosophic spirit of free inquiry. He per- 
ceived a remarkable similarity or rather identity in 
many Gothic and Anglo-Saxon words with Greek 
and Latin terms. What is the inference deducible 
from this fact ? That the half civilized and illiterate 
tribes of the North borrowed such words from the 
highly civilized, and, therefore, powerfully influen- 
tial Greeks and Romans, or, that they both derived 
them from a common origin ? No, indeed, but that 
the Greeks and Romans, those masters and teachers 
of the world after the extinction of Babylon and 
Memphis, borrowed many words (perhaps terms of 
art and science) from the rude and unlettered tribes 
of ancient Germany ! Or, as is ingeniously (not to 



13 

say fancifully) supposed, in bold defiance of all his- 
tory and all probability 3, that these rude tribes made 
successful irruptions into Greece and Italy, and 
grafted their language on that which already existed 
in these countries ! If one language were as quickly 
grafted on another as pippins are on crabs, (though 
the theory in question supposes the crab to have 
been grafted on the pippin,) Gothic irruptions (though 
Celtic irruptions would have a better claim) might 
have grafted a Gothic language on that of Greece and 
of Rome ; but history supplies no evidence of such 
a process, which is effected not by irruptions but by 
permanent conquest and long possession ; and even 
these have frequently failed of producing such an 
effect. Was the language of China thus formed by 
the incursions of Northern barbarians ? (for the Chi- 
nese were conquered by the Tartars). Was the mo- 
dern Greek formed by the irruption and even subju- 
gation of the Turks ? We will even put less obvious 
instances : was the present language of Italy and 
France and Spain thus produced ? The idiom and 
grammatic construction and conjugations and declen- 
sions (and in these respects the modern is about as 
dissimilar to the ancient classic Greek) are, indeed, 
different from those of the ancient written, classic 
or learned Latin, (which differed more widely, in all 
probability, from the common or vulgar Latin than 
do the compositions of Johnson from the dialogues 
of our cockneys and villagers,) but the words, with 
few exceptions, are the same. The Italian, the 



14 

French and the Spanish are, notwithstanding Gothic 
irruption, and permanent conquest, and perpetual 
possession, nothing but a corrupt Latin. The truth 
is, a handful of invaders, (and handful they must be, 
however numerous, when considered in reference to 
a populous nation,) never did and never can produce 
much change on the language of a dense population; 
to which they are related as the Catholic missionaries 
to the Hindoos and Chinese; and instead of con- 
verting the people to their language, opinions, and 
customs, they conform to the established usage of 
the people. And if the ancient Saxons established 
their language in England and in the lowlands of 
Scotland, it proves that they were, if not the sole 
inhabitants, (the poor Celts having fled from their 
Gothic presence to the barren mountains,) at least 
a great and overpowering majority. 

But the Herculean argument for the Northern 
Origin, is the darkness of its deep antiquity. We 
can trace (Mr. Home Tooke avers) the origin of 
the Latin and the Greek ; but that of the Gothic 
is involved in darkness and buried in the deepest 
antiquity. Well, and is not the origin of Cossackic 
and Hottentotic, and of all the languages of all the 
uncivilized and half-civilized tribes of the earth, 
sufficiently buried in darkness to entitle them to the 
same honour? Why should the Anglo-Saxon or 
Gothic monopolize all this merit ? The Celtic has 
surely some claims ; and, as to words without num- 
ber, every one capable of using a dictionary may 



15 

soon satisfy himself not only of striking resemblance, 
but of absolute identity with both the Greek and the 
Latin. Have not the Welsh, for example, Pont and 
Dant P which are plainly Pons and Dens, or, as in 
Italian, Ponte and Dente, And is it not undeniably 
certain that the Romans borrowed all such words 
from the Welsh, the more ancient people? — which 
word people as well as populus, is, without contro- 
vej^y, a corruption of the Welsh Pobl ; for the more 
cultivated and literary language is uniformly derived 
from one ruder and less literary. It is amusing 
enough to find other writers advocating the Celtic 
origin of the Greek and Latin languages, with as 
much zeal, if not with the same talent, as Home 
Tooke advocated the Gothic origin. The common 
worshipers of Celtic and Gothic antiquity (few of 
whom are worthy of ranging under the banners of 
Pinkerton and Whittaker) deserve no notice ; but 
even the paradoxes of Home Tooke merit refutation, 
and therefore we have devoted . more attention to 
them than may seem necessary. 

The fact is as well established as any historical 
fact whatever, that the Goths had not the use of 
letters before the fourth century; that they borrowed 
their letters from the Greeks and Romans ; that their 
first attempts at literature were rude translations and 
imitations of works written in Greek and Latin. 

The fair inference seems to be, that as the Gothic, 
or, say at once, Saxon Hterature, (and the writings of 
men in the present age who know not how to spell 



16 

their own name, arc as worthy of sucli a dignified 
appellation,) originated in Greek and Latin, so did 
a great proportion of the words composing it. This 
always has been the fact ; for a rude and illiterate 
people as naturally borrow words from their civilized 
and literate neighbours as they borrow their improve- 
ments and arts and sciences, or as the poor beg 
from the rich : and the inverse process supposed, is 
as absurd as the idea of the rich borrowino; food and 
raiment from the poorest paupers that exist in their 
neighbourhood or live on their bounty. 

The only question, indeed, with unprejudiced in- 
quirers, is likely to be concerning not the reality but 
the amount of Saxon derivation from the learned lan- 
guages. This may not be easily ascertained with 
perfect accuracy; but from the very nature of the 
operating causes or influencing circumstances it must 
have been very considerable: and in reply to all 
Home Tooke's smart witticisms about the Goths 
not waiting for others to come and put words in 
their mouth, it is sufficient to remark, that they 
would naturally adopt in process of time new foreign 
terms for many of their old vernacular ideas, (for 
such is the process with all people similarly circum- 
stanced,) and that with the multitude of ideas which 
literature introduced among them, they would adopt 
to a wide extent the terms in which they were con- 
veyed to them, partly from choice and partly from 
necessity. This is the history of all the living lan- 
guages of the earth, not merely of such as are most 



17 

rude, unformed, and imperfect, (and what can we}\ 
partake more of these attributes than the scrap of 
Gothic contained in Codex Argenteus, or even the 
Saxon of the eighth and ninth centuries ?) but of 
those which are most improved, and most firmly 
fixed by authoritative rules, established principles, 
and admitted standards. New terms and modes of 
speech are constantly displacing the old ; for. 



usus 



Quera penes arbitrium est jus et norma loquendi. 

Custom, the sovereign arbiter of language, is as 
capricious as tyrannical ; and " time is the greatest 
of all innovators." It is only by ceasing to exist as a 
living language, that the privilege is acquired of being 
deified with immutability, if the Fates decree as to 
the Greek and the Latin the lasting honour of im- 
mortality. 

The only argument of Mr. Home Tooke intrin- 
sically deserving refutation, is that which he at- 
tempts to erect on the evidence of etymology ; and on 
this he evidently relies with much confidence. He 
puts the question — When two different languages 
have the same words, how are we to ascertain which 
of them borrowed from the other ? This is not a 
very satisfactory mode of putting the question, for 
two languages might have the same words without 
either borrowing from the other, as both might have 
derived them from a common origin. But his man- 
ner of replying to the question is still less satisfactory. 



13 

Etymology is to decide. So far good ; but wliat kind 
of etymology ? Here the advocate of the Northern 
Origin (to use his own words in reference to the 
supposed Divine Origin) takes a short cut which 
certainly saves much trouble, but leaves us in much 
ignorance ; for instead of proofs he contents himself 
vrith assumptions, as if the business were settled by 
merely asserting that a certain word is a Gothic 
verb or noun, without even attempting to give us 
any further information. And, for example, (he 
affirms,) is the imperative of Annan, give, and Ad 
or Od, a noun meaning heap, i. e. give heap, or put 
the heap : and this is the whole history and mystery 
of the conjunction And ! ! 

As to the instances which he gives of Gothic and 
Saxon words, whence corresponding Latin and Greek 
words must have been derived, it is difficult to con- 
ceive any reason whatever, save that the former are 
found in Gothic and Saxon letters and spelling. It 
was at first intended to collect in this place such 
instances, as well as all such Gothic derivations as 
seem demonstrably false or absurd, but it was sub- 
sequently deemed best to refer the reader to the Dic- 
tionary, w^here they are examined in their alphabetic 
order. This, whilst it avoids swelling the present 
work unnecessarily, seems more respectful to the 
memory of Mr. Home Tooke, than if we were to 
bring all his objectionable derivations into one view. 
We take leave of him, therefore, for the present, by 
merely adding, that with all our esteem for his 



19 

talents and many of his opinions^ we cannot help 
thinking that he presumed not a Httle on the ety- 
mologic ignorance and credulity of his readers, and 
that he trusted more to intuitive sagacity, than to 
careful inspection or laborious inquiry. 

There are but few Gothic admirers that can de- 
serve the honour of being noticed in connexion with 
the author of the Diversions of Purley ; but this 
seems the proper place for saying a few words about 
the utility of Saxon literature, especially as there 
appears some disposition to exalt it into undue im- 
portance. A Saxon Professor in one of our most 
renowned seats of learning has employed very laud- 
atory strains on the subject ; to one or two of which, 
it will quite suffice, to apply the test of criticism, 
if, indeed, it be fair thus to try the soundness of 
panegyrical orations. For what can be more natural, 
and, in the judgment of many, more laudable, than 
to endeavour to magnify the importance of our office 
and of our favourite studies, and pursuits, and theo- 
ries ? 

" The Anglo-Saxon" (the learned Professor affirms) 
" is one of those ancient languages to which we may 
successfully refer in our inquiries how language has 
been constructed." Well, this is a most comfortable 
assurance, a most gracious promise— big with hope, 
and pregnant with anticipation as the doctrine of 
Home Tooke ; but, if equally barren of results, is 
it not very unkind to tantalize our fond desires ? It 
would be at least charitable to bestow upon us a few 

c2 



20 

crumbs of successful Inquiry how language has been, 
constructed. 

The serious/ sober truth is, that Anglo-Saxon is 
available for etymologic purposes in studying the 
English language, but not half so available as Ger- 
man, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, old English, Scot- 
tish, Greek, and Latin. The reason is obvious : 
such was the illiterateness of even the Saxon literati, 
that they knew not how to depict to the eye their 
own barbarous sounds. Plence the caprices of Saxon 
orthograpy, as they are leniently termed by the 
candid and enlightened author of the Anglo-Saxon 
History. To have a true idea of these caprices, 
(more properly rude essays at spelling,) we have 
only to compare them with the literary attempts of 
our most unlettered mechanics or labourers who can 
barely read and write. Their orthography and com- 
position and that of the Saxons will be found re- 
markably similar. This may displease the lovers of 
Saxon literature, and all lovers are apt to be offend- 
ed when freedoms are taken with the objects of their 
affections ; but our apology must be, that we have 
no wish to offend, and the ruling principle of our 
sentimentality is, Rien n est beau que le vrai. 

"The present language of Englishmen," (says the 
Saxon scholar above alluded to,) " is not that hete- 
rogeneous compound which some imagine, compiled 
from the jarring and corrupted elements of Hebrew, 
Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian ; but [but 
what? completely Anglo-Saxon in its whole deri- 



21 

vation, having none but pure Gothic words in its 
vocabulary !] completely Anglo-Saxon in its whole 
idiom and construction!'^ 

We rnay well exclaim fie upon but ; for it brings 
forth a most irrelevant conclusion. A zealous French- 
man might exclaim^ — The present language of 
Frenchmen is not that corruption of Latin which 
some imagine ; but completely French in its whole 
idiom and construction : and thus might Spanish 
and Italian professors reason for the idiomatic anti- 
quity of their language. 

Specimens of the present English have been 
selected for the purpose of showing what a great 
number of pure Saxon words they contain ; but wc 
think it can be proved that most, if not all, of these 
very Saxon words are as really Greek and Latin, as 
those which are admitted to be adopted from these 
languages. The sole diiference is, that the words 
given as Saxon were adopted at a much earlier and 
ruder period, and, therefore, are more changed, con- 
tracted, and disguised. This is an opinion not hastily 
adopted, (for it was reluctantly admitted, being forced 
upon the understanding of the author in opposition 
to his faith in the Northern Origin,) but slowly and 
cautiously formed, after much inquiry and long de- 
liberation. 

If this opinion can be established, if it can be 
satisfactorily shown that all, or nearly all, the words 
of the English language are merely Greek and Latin 
terms, in learning which, so much time is spent in 



22 

youth ; the result will surely be far more important 
than tracing them up to the darkness of Gothic 
antiquity, which is as void of pleasing association 
as of useful instruction. And if the utility of our 
labours should prove much smaller than is antici- 
pated, we hope, at least, to present etymology in an 
attractive form to the admirers of Greece and Rome, 
and all the lovers of polite literature. A writer of 
some celebrity has expressed considerable uneasiness 
and alarm at the idea of being dragged by etymology 
into the woods of Germany. Such fears are perfectly 
groundless. In studying the etymology of your own 
language to discover its true meaning and full force, 
its beauties and graces, and, we may add, its noble 
descent and learned origin, you may have to make 
the tour of Germany, and to approach within view 
of the Black Forest ; but the most finished under- 
standings, the most accomplished judgments, the 
most elegant tastes and refined sensibilities, will not 
be left forlorn in Gothic regions, a prey to savage 
rudeness ; for etymology will conduct them to the 
classic banks of the Tiber, and the philosophic groves 
of Academus, where the smooth periods of the 
eloquent Cicero, and the golden sentences of the 
divine Plato, communicate to the ravished ear pro- 
found reflections on the true philosophy of the mind, 
the immutable principles of taste, and the eternal 
laws of criticism. 



23 



ETYMOLOGIC PRELIMINARIES. 



THE INTERCHANGES OF THE LETTERS OF THE AL- 
PHABET CONSIDERED. 

Here it must be premised that letters, syllables, 
and words, are so variously changed in process of 
time, and in passing from mouth to mouth, from 
people to people, and from writer to writer, as to 
render it impossible to lay down rules which will 
embrace all etymologic transmutations. It is only 
intended, therefore, to point out those which are of 
most common occurrence. 

The letters of the alphabet admit of being etymo- 
logical ly arranged thus : — 

A, E, I, O, U, W, Y, 

B, P, M, F, V, Ph, 

C, G, K, Qu, X, H, Ch, Gh, 

D, T, K, Z, S, N, J, 

L, R. 

Each of these distributions may be etymological ly 
considered as but one letter. The first, in the above 
distribution, are denominated vowels^ (Vocalis from 
Vox, voice or sound,) because they of themselves 
give a distinct sound : all the other letters are deno- 
minated consonants^ because they can be sounded 



only in connexion with vowels. The first consonants, 
in the above distribution, are denominated labiak, 
(Labialis from Labium, lip,) because they are 
formed by a compression of the lips : the second are 
denomiusLted gutturals, (Gutturalis from Guttur, 
throat,) because they are formed by a compression 
or action of the throat : the third are named dentals, 
(Dentalis from Dens, tooth,) because they require 
the compression or action of the teeth : L and R are 
denominated Unguals, (from Lingua, the tongue,) 
because they require the action of the tongue upon 
the roof of the mouth : the only difference is, that 
in forming r, the tongue is not brought into such 
close contact with the palate, as in forming /, 
whilst it has a slight jarring or vibratory motion. 
It is somewhat remarkable, that these two are almost 
the only letters in the alphabet, in the formation of 
which the tongue has any share ; though it has had 
the honour of giving name to speech among most, if 
not all, nations. 

As to the reason or justness of the above designa- 
tions, the reader may satisfy himself with experi- 
ments upon (or in) his own mouth in the course of 
a few minutes ; and there is a convenience in them^ 
which is all the value we attach to them. 

The interchanges of the vowels are so frequent, 
and so familiar to every one who has given the 
smallest attention to the subject, that we shall not 
trouble the reader with a single instance, but proceed 
drrectly to their interchanges with the consonants. 



25 

And here it will be proper to noticCj first, those letters 
which have a middle nature between vowels and 
consonants, and which are considered as sometimes 
the one and sometimes the other. U, V, W, are 
essentially the same letter ; as are I, J, Y : hence 
their numerous interchanges ; as in the following 
instances : Vacillo, which we have Waggle, con- 
tracted into Wag ; Vae, Woe ; Valeo, Well ; 
Vall-um, Wall ; Varus, Wry ; Vastus, Waste ; 
Vellus, Villus, Wool ; Ventus, Wind ; Vermis, 
Worm ; Vin-um, Wine ; Virt-us, Worth ; Volo, 
Will,&c. &c. 

Thus F, as well as the other labials, frequently 
changes into W : as. Wear, i. e. Fero ; Woman, 
i. e. FcEMiNA ; With, :j: Mith, i. e. METH ; Wave 
from Move; Wrack and Wreck from ^ Brek, Break; 
Wend and Wind from Bend ; Wench from Minx ; 
War, i. e. Mars. 

In the same manner are M, V, Ou, U, changed 
into Y : Yellow, i. e. Melleus ; Yea, Yes, i. e. Oui, 
Fr ; Yell, (as also Howl, Wail,) i. e. Ululo ; You, 
i. e. f^ous, Fr. pronounced f^oo, &c. &c. 

Thus, also, e/. becomes Y : Yoke, i. e. Jug-um ; 
Young, (whence ;{: Youngth, now Youth,) i. e. Ju- 

VENCUS, &C. 

There is a great affinity between the vowels and 
the labials, which are the easiest of all consonants, 
except, perhaps, J, G, and C soft, S and Z : these 
letters, therefore, and the labials, interchange more 



26 

frequently with the vowels than do the other conso- 
nants. 

The interchanges of the labials among themselves 
are so obvious and so frequent in their occurrence, 
as to render instances wholly unnecessary. It will 
be sufficient, therefore, to notice their relation to the 
other consonants. B (which requires the strongest 
effort in utterance of all the labials) often inter- 
changes with D andT: thus, Dis, Bis; Bellum, 
DuELLUM ; Word, Wort, (Ger.) i. e. Verb-um ; 
Beard, Bart, (Ger.) i. e. Barba, &c. &c. M, be- 
sides its labial, has a nasal property ; hence it fre- 
quently interchanges with N, which also has a nasal 
property, besides being a dental. Thus the Greek 
termination ON is UM in Latin ; ME in Greek is 
Ne in Latin ; Natte in French is Mat in English ; 
Besom and Bosom are Besen send Busen in German, 
&c. 

V and F, which may be termed the aspirate or 
breathing labials, have an affinity to H, Th, and Wh, 
which are also aspirates ; and, therefore, frequently 
interchange with them: thus, Vallis, Valley, became 
Thai, (as it still is in German,) then Dale, Dell ; 
Haste is from Fast, i. e. Festinus ; Horse is a cor- 
ruption of Ferus; Hunt, (whence ^ Hund, Hound,) 
i. e. Venatus ; Haunt, i.e. Ventito ; Hors, Fr. 
i. e. FoRis, Fuor, It. and our Forth ; Hahlar, Hacer, 
Hamhre, Harina, Sp. i. e. Fabulor, Facere, 
Fames, Farina, &c. &c. 



27 

The letter ^has, in not a few words, changed into 
soft G : Age^ i. e. ^^v-um ; Abreger, Fr. Abridge, 
i. e. Abbrevio ; Sergeant, i. e. Servant, &c. &c. 

The letter H has been classed with the gutturals 5 
but, as it has several peculiarities, it may as well be 
disposed of in this place. It is in all respects a most 
capricious member of the alphabet ; and the Italians, 
not without reason perhaps, have denied it all claim 
to the honour of a letter ; and one of their proverbs 
i« — not worth an H ; and the only office assigned 
to it in their language, is the humble one of showing 
when C and G are to be pronounced hard before e 
and i : as Chino, Cheto, pronounced Kino, Keto. 
The following remarks shall suffice for H. 

1. It is frequently dropped in words that once 
enjoyed the honour of its company : as Able, i. e. 
Habile. 

2. It is frequently inserted where it had originally 
no place : as ;}: Hal, Hall, i. e. Aula, i. e. AULE ; 
Hang, i. e. Ango, i. e. AGCHO ; Harvest, i. e. 
Arista ; Hearth, i. e. Earth ; Hint, i. e. Intimate ; 
Hackney, i. e. Achinea, It. 

It may be remarked, that the uneducated are 
usually guilty of much impropriety in the use of H, 
prefixing it to most words beginning with a vowel, 
whilst they frequently omit it in those cases which 
grammatical custom has rendered proper. 

3. It is a corruption of C, G, and other gutturals: 
as Horn, i. c. Cornu ; Heart, Ilerz^ Gcr. i. e. 



28 

CoRS ; House, ^ Hus, ^ Hasa, i. e. Casa ; Havpf, 
Ger. X Hafod, X Heafd, Head, i. e. Caput. 

4. It is put not only for F, V, as noticed above, 
but also for the other labials: as Hire, i. e. Mereo; 
Hand, i. e. Man-us ; Hag, i. e. Maga, Saga. 

5. Many instances occur of its being put for 
dentals : Home, i. e. Dom-us, &c. 

6. The H or aspirate of the Greek is frequently 
changed into S in the Latin : as HEX, Sex ; 
HEPTA, Septem ; HEMI, Semi ; HUPER or 
HYPER, Super, &c. &c. In all such instances we, 
as well as our modern neighbours, uniformly follow 
the Latins. 

We frequently find ^, as well as S, in Latin, for 
the Greek aspirate, or where the iEolians had B, 
concerning which there has been so much learned 
controversy ; as Ver, i. e. HEAR, or BER, ^ol, 
F, V (the far-famed digamma of the i^olians). H 
(originally E long) and S are so frequently inter- 
changed, and so frequently inserted where they had 
originally no existence, that we cannot, perhaps, 
ascertain their order and succession : certain it is, 
that many words in the Latin have these letters, 
which are not to be found in the Greek forms of the 
same words : whether the Greeks pronounced such 
words as if they had such letters, it is useless to 
inquire. Thus, also, many words with us have these 
letters which did not originally exist : as, Harvest, 
i. e. Arista, &c. 



29 



THE GUTTURALS. 



These are plainly resolvable into one letter, or at 
the most, two letters. H, which we have classed 
with them, because it seemed to belong more to the 
guttural than to any other distribution, is merely an 
aspirate or sign of a strong expulsion of breath from 
the lungs with open mouth : X, like Ch and Gh, is 
a compound letter, being Cs ; Qu (for Q is never 
found without U) is merely Cu ; C and K are the 
same letter, the last being the Greek, and the first 
the Latin form. There remain to be considered, 
therefore, only G and C. These two letters are 
nearly identical ; indeed they were put indifferently, 
or ad libitum, in many Latin w^ords ; and the G was 
not admitted into the Latin alphabet till after the 
first Punic war. 

Nothing can well be more different from another 
than are the two powers of these letters, i. e. G and 
C hard and G and C sofl : the one is truly hard (i. e. 
difficult and harsh) to both mouth (or rather throat) 
and ear ; the other is altogether as soft and easy, 
being the same as J, S, Tsh. 

Here it will be proper to notice this double cha- 
racter of the gutturals. Mr. Home Tooke affirms, 
that, w^ith the Goths and Saxons as well as Latins 
and Greeks, these letters G and C were always hard ; 
but this appears to be one of his confident assump- 
tions and bold assertions, well supported, it is true. 



30 

in this case, by the authority of otliers. He is evi- 
dently wrong with regard to the Goths and Saxons, 
as is admitted and shown by the Saxon Professor of 
Oxford ; and that he is equally wrong with regard to 
the Latins, is more than probable ; else, how was it 
that C and T should be indifferently employed in so 
many words, as Accius, Attius ; Planities, Planicies ? 
How should the two powers or sounds (or whatever 
they ought to be called) of G and C have taken pos- 
session of all the modern languages, even in words 
that are manifestly Greek and Latin ? 

The double character of these letters is to be re- 
gretted for several reasons, and for none more than 
for the etymologic disguise which it has thrown 
around manv words whose origin would have been 
obvious ; but the fact seems to be, that even from 
very early and ancient times the evil complained of 
existed, and that it originated in the difficulty and 
harshness of the hard or guttural pronunciation of 
the letters in question ; and there appears a physical 
reason why it should have become a general rule, 
that before e, i, and y^ G and C are soft ; because 
there is a peculiar difficulty or labour (for men na- 
turally consult their ease) in making them hard be- 
fore these vowels, especially as the vowels were 
anciently pronounced ; for the mouth is much more 
freely opened in pronouncing a, o, and u, than in 
pronouncing e, i, and y. 

It is owing to the guttural difficulty and harshness 
(especially to the Latins, Italians, and French, through 



3i 

whom we have received so many words) of G and C, 
that they change after the following manner : 

1. N is assumed for the purpose of producing a 
nasal facility and smoothness of pronunciation ; thus, 
Pago became Pango ; Jugo^ Jungo^ &c. : hence 
the frequent union of N and G, and N and C, not 
only in the Latin, but in all the modern languages 
of Europe, especially the Italian and the French, in 
which last language N and M have, without the 
assistance of G, very frequently the ringing nasal 
sound; which sound predominates so much, Cpro- 
bably because the good people of France find it de- 
lightfully easy,) that said language might with more 
propriety be called after the nose than after the 
tongue. 

It was remarked above, that there is a mutual 
affinity between M and N, because they have both 
a nasal character ; as the gutturals and the N have, 
when united, a highly nasal power; hence, they 
also have a kind of mutual attraction ; for as N is 
frequently taken into union with G, so G and C, or 
K, are frequently taken into union with N : as, 
GNOPHOS, KNEPHAS (Greek) for NEPHOS, 
(NE PHOS,) GNOO, GNOMA for NOEO, NO- 
EMA ; Gnatus for Natus ; Gnavus for Navus ; 
Montagna (It.) for Montana, &c. Song, (whence 
Sing,) i. e. Sonus ; Tink, Ting, i. e. Tinnio ; 
Strong, i. e. Strenu-us ; and many of our termina- 
tions in ng : thus, i7ig, the present participial termi- 
nation was formerly end, ende, ent, and, ant, ande, 



32 

&c. ; for such are the caprices of the Saxon ortho- 
graphy, that twenty different spellings might be 
discovered. 

It may just be remarked, before leaving this topic^ 
that the double guttural has, in Greek, the ringing 
nasal sound : Hang, Ango, is, in Greek, AGCHO ; 
EvANGELiuM is EUAGGELION, &c. &c. 

2. Owning to the guttural difficulty and harshness 
above noticed, C, K, G, are frequently changed, not 
only into J and S, both in power and in spelling, 
but also into X, Ch, Gh, W, H, &c.: Fixus from 
FiGO ; Nexo from Necto ; Veho, i. e. OCHEO ; 
Walk, i. e. Calco ; Short, i. e. Curt, i. e. Curt-us ; 
Chain, i. e. Catena ; Chalice, i. e. Calix ; Church, 
i. e. X Kurk, X Kirk, i. e. KURIKOS ; Fellow, i. e. 
Colleague, i. e. Collega ; Night, i. e. Nocte, (abla- 
tive of Nox,) Notte (It.) ; Right, i. e. Rect-us, &c. 
&c. The present gh of the English language is 
silent, and only serves to make the preceding vowel 
long, except in a few instances where it sounds like 
ff ; but it was at first, as it still is with the Scotch, 
Germans, &c., a particular Northern guttural, ap- 
proaching to a strong aspirate or the H forcibly 
pronounced. 

THE dentals. 

These of course frequently interchange, and the 
same general rule of transmutation holds ; viz. the 
more harsh and difficult letters (and combinations of 
letters) usually change into those w^hich are more 



33 

smooth and easy. Facility^ however^, being often the 
result of early and long habit, a pronunciation may 
be easy to one people which is very difficult to an- 
other. Thus the Saxon sound of gh^ ch, so easy to 
the Scotch and Germans, &C.5 is almost impossible 
to the modern English (just as some French sounds 
are) ; and th, so easy to the English, is almost un- 
pronounceable to the other nations of Europe. But 
though so difficult to them, there are almost innume- 
rable instances of its being substituted among us for 
letters that seem both smoother and easier ; as, 

X Thack, Thatch, i. e. Tect-um ; Thin, i. e. 
Tenu-is ; Thrust, i. e. Trusit-o ; Thunder, i. e. 
ToNiTRU ; Thou, Thee, i. e. Tu, Te ; Faith, i. e. 
FiD-Es ; Mother, i. e. Mater ; Father, i. e. Pater ; 
Brother, i. e. Frater, &c. &c. 

The general tendency of transmutation among the 
dentals is of D into T, and of T and Th into S, Sh, 
Z : hence, ed, the p. p. of verbs, is frequently chang- 
ed into t ; as, learnt for learned, &c. ; and eth, the 
verbal termination, is now generally s; as loves for 
loveth, &c. 

Di having before another vowel nearly, if not 
wholly, the very power of J, it is interchanged with 
it ; as. 

Journey, (also Char J i. e. Diurnus ; Journal, 
i. e. Diurnal. 

S, Sh, Ti, (when pronounced shi,) can hardly be 
considered dentals, being merely an emission of 

D 



34 

breath with the mouth compressed : being of very 
easy formation they are of frequent occurrence, not- 
withstanding their unpleasant hiss, like that of a 
goose and a serpent so much objected to. aS' is fre- 
quently inserted merely for the purpose of softening 
harsh or difficult letters ; as. Scour, (to run,) i. e. 
CuRRO ; Scourge, Scorreggia, (It.,) i. c. Corrigia ; 
Slabber, i. e. Labari ; Slip, i. e. Laps-us ; Slack, 
i. e. Lax-US ; Shme, i. e. Limus ; Square, i. e. 
Quadra ; Slight, i. e. Light ; Skill, i. e. Called ; 
Scald, Scalido, (It.,) i. e. Calidus, &c. 

S is frequently a contraction of Ex: Span, Span- 
na, (It.,) i. e. Expansa (stretched out); Spawn, i. e. 
ExpONO (to throw out) ; Speed, Spedio, (It.,) i. e. 
ExPEDio ; Spend, i. e. Expend, &c. &c. This con- 
traction of Ex occurs much in all the modern lan- 
guages, but especially in Itahan. 

There is such an affinity, or mutual attraction, be- 
tween d, t, and n, that the one frequently takes the 
other into union with it. Thus, Maund (Mande, 
Fr.) i. e. Man-us, also corrupted into Hand; 
Wander, Andare (It.), Andar (Sp.), i. e. Vadere ; 
Render, i. e. Reddere, &c. &c. 

the linguals. 

These letters, i. e. L and R, interchange so fre- 
quently, that there is hardly a single word contain- 
ing either of them which does not supply an instance 



35 

when traced through the different languages of 
Greece^ Italy, France^ England, &c. We proceed 
at once, therefore, to other considerations. 

1. Owing to the vibratory motion of the tongue 
in pronouncing / and r, they are frequently (particu- 
larly the latter) tumbled out of their proper place^ 
and (except when language is remarkably ^o^e^^ by 
established principles and authoritative rules) they 
do not remain long in any one position, but shift 
about to every possible point of the same word ; 
occupying, by turns, the beginning, the middle, 
and the termination. The fact in question is so 
obvious, and has been so frequently noticed by 
preceding writers, that we shall not stop to collect 
instances. 

2. There are properly two kinds, i. e. pronuncia- 
tions, of both L and R ; the one exceedingly harsh 
and difficult, the other very smooth and easy. When 
preceded and followed by vowels, they are so easy to 
the mouthy and so musical to the ear, as to deserve 
all the liquid encomiums of both the old and new 
grammarians ; but when beginning a word, or when 
wedged in between hard consonants, or even when 
strongly uttered, (though not thus situated,) in the 
manner of the Irish and French, &c., nothing can be 
more harsh and difficult, and even unpronounceable, 
to some organs of speech. So that the doctrine of 
the liquid powers of L and R is, in one view, very 
true, in another, very false. There are individuals, 
and indeed, people of a whole district, that can never 

d2 



36 

master and manage the hard L. The peasants of 
Somersetshire, usually corrupt it into W : ludicrous 
instances of which are familiar to most persons — such 
as the following. A Somersetshire man exhorting 
his brethren, (in London as we have heard,) told 
them to go home and examine their wives, i.e. lives : 
and in reference to the Saviour, he thanked God for 
the wife that he wed and the doctrine which he 
taught so queerly, i. e. for the life which he led and 
the doctrine which he taught so clearly. 

The old Saxons seem to have been put to their 
shifts in pronouncing L ; hence, in the Saxon litera- 
ture it is frequently preceded by H; as Hlaf i.e. 
Loaf, &c. 

It was evidently to distinguish between the soft 
and hard, or weak and strong L and R, that these 
letters were, at first, sometimes put singly, and some- 
times doubly ; for as we have rr and // at the encj of 
many words, so the Spaniards and the Welsh, &c., 
have LI at the beginning of words, some of which, 
indeed, are corruptions of CI, PI, Fl : as Llama, 
(Sp.) for Flamma, Flame, &c. 

The facts contained in the following particulars 
naturally arise out of the double character of the 
linguals. 

3. Owing to the difficulty of pronouncing R and 
L hard, (particularly the last,) they have been, in 
many instances, suppressed : as Moan, i. e. Mourn, 
(McEREO,) Haut, Haute, Fr. i. e. Alt-us, whence 
High, Height, Haughty, &c. ; Sauce, i. e. Salsa, It. ; 



37 

Save^ i. e. Salvo. Where the L is yet retained in 
the spelling, it is often silent in pronunciation : as. 
Calm, Walk, Would, &c. 

4. As the smooth pronunciation of L and R, 
(particularly the last,) is but a slight jar of the 
tongue in emitting sound from the mouth ; they 
(particularly R) are often unintentionally present- 
ed to the ear, especially by indistinct speakers, 
as all illiterate persons are, such as those with 
whom language originated, or rather through whom 
it descended : and hence, the Unguals are found in 
many words in which they did not originally exist. 
Thus, Carmen, i. e. Camena ; -j- Armoniack, i. e. 
Ammoniac ; Bridegroom, i. e. Bruidegom, (Dutch,) 
Brantigam, (Ger.) compounded of Bride and GA- 
MEO to marry ; Brick, i. e. Backstein, Ger. &c. &c. 

If the following words were spelled as they are 
vulgarly pronounced, (which would be the case if 
our orthography were not fixed,) they would be Idear^ 
Lawr, Windoiur, Drawr, for Draw, &c. &c. The 
fact is, it requires a very correct habit of utterance 
to avoid the insertion of R in these and similar 
cases, and especially in connexion with the broad 
A ; because the percussion of air from the lungs 
acting on the rough surface of the larynx, naturally 
tends to produce the jarring sound of R, even if the 
tongue could be kept perfectly quiet ; which, how- 
ever, without an effort of resistance is thrown into a 
vibratory motion at the same time. Hence, persons 
who use the larynx much in speaking have what 



38 

is called the burr in the throat, like the people of 
Newcastle. 

5. L frequently interchanges with N: hence 
Maninconia, It. for Melancholia ; Bale, Baleful, 
Bane, Baneful. The physical reason of this inter- 
change is, that the action of the mouth in forming 
/ and n is nearly the same. N is sometimes changed 
into L, but the general process of transmutation is of 
L into N. 

6. In Italian L is generally changed into I, when 
immediately preceded by B, F, P : as, Biasimo, i. e. 
Blasphemo ; Fiamma, i. e. Flamma ; Pianta, i. e. 
Planta ; Piano, i. e. Plano. 

All the above remarks were framed with an im- 
mediate view to our own language, but being founded 
on physical principles they apply equally to all lan- 
guages. They do not include every possible change 
among the letters of the alphabet, but they will 
serve as a general indication of alphabetic transmu- 
tations. 



39 



VERBAL CONTRACTION OR ABBREVIATION CON- 
SIDERED. 

Here three general rules may be laid down. 

1. The more illiterate any people are^ the more 
do they contract their words ; and the illiterate part 
of a community always shorten their words more 
than the educated portion of society. Thus the lan- 
guage of the Franks abounds with more violent con- 
tractions of Latin than does that of the Italians^ the 
modern masters and teachers of Europe : the lan- 
guage of the Saxons is characterized by more verbal 
contraction than the old English in the time of 
Chaucer, and the English of his period has more of 
the same character than when our language first 
began to be fixed by established rules and uniform 
polite usage : and thus, also, the language of the 
vulgar is remarkable for violent contractions : as, 
Gemman, for Gentleman ; ^'nt, for are not ; fudge, 
for fiction ; Jib^ for fable ; bum, for bottom : to 
which may be added such words as the following, 
though yet tolerated in familiar or jocular discourse ; 
ca'nt, shant, wont, for cannot, shall not, will not ; 
rant, for rodomontade ; rum, for romantic ; chum, 
for comrade, &c. &c. Had these and all such 
words descended to us from the venerable antiquity 
of Saxon literature, they would, in all probability, 
have possessed, if not dignity, at least, respectabi- 



40 

lity ; but being vulgar upstarts of recent times, they 
can never rise to the classic title of good expressions, 
or to the honour of polite usage. 

2. Longer w^ords and syllables contract (whilst 
language is unfixed) into shorter, and the longer the 
vs^ord, the greater the contraction. Thus polysylla 
bles become monosyllables, and monosyllables fre- 
quently shorten into a single letter : as Auditus 
contr. into Udito, It. ; Out, Fr. ; Ego, contr. into 
J Eck, X Ick, X Ich, X Ic, then /, Je, Fr. ; /o. It. ; 
Vo, Sp. ; Habeo, contr. into Ho, It. ; He, Sp. ; Ai, 
Fr., &c. &c. 

Such is the process of every living language on 
the face of the earth until checked by grammatic 
authority, w^hich is late in coming into existence, 
and not till long after the lawless anarchy of custom 
(the sovereign arbiter of language according to Ho- 
race) has committed strange etymologic outrages in 
mutilating and disfiguring the monuments of classic 
antiquity. These disfigurations are the true Gothic 
Origin of the modern languages : and even the 
Italians, those modern Latins, consider themselves 
indebted for their language to the Lombards. 

The contractions in question are made in every 
possible manner ; sometimes the beginning and 
sometimes the termination of words is cut off, and 
sometimes the middle is thrust out and the two ex- 
tremes compressed into the closest possible contact ; 
especially by the French, who, next to the Anglo- 
Saxons, have been guilty of the greatest etymologic 



41 

havock* The following ancient and modern name^ 
of places are presented as instances of the process of 
verbal contraction above indicated. The oldest form 
is put first. 

Acarnania, now Carnia ; Aciris, Acri ; Adranum^ 
Aderno ; iEnona^ Nona ; /Euus, In ; Agrigentum, 
Gergenti ; Aletium, Lecci ; Alexandria^ Scanderia ; 
Alexandrium, Scandalia ; Aluta, Alth ; Ambiani^ 
Amiens ; Amisia, Emse ; Amisus, Amid ; Amphi- 
polis, Emboli ; Antipolis, Antibe ; Aquse Sextise^ 
Aix ; Arelatum, Aries; Arsenariaria, Arzen; Ateste. 
Este ; Agusta, Aosta ; Aiigustodunum^ Autun ; 
Auximum, Osimo ; Barathra^ Brata ; Borbetomagos^ 
Worms ; Cabilonum^ Challon ; Caesar Augusta, 
Saragosa ; Ligeris, Loire ; Mseandrus^ Madre ; Ma- 
trona, Marne ; Metaurus^ Marro ; Magantiacum, 
Mentz ; Rhodanus, Rhone; Thessalonica^ Salonichi; 
Garienus, Yar ; Eboracura, York ; Castellum, Cas- 
sel ; Conimbrica^ Coimbra ; Damascus, Damas ; 
Forum Julii, Friuli ; Lugdunum, Lyons ; Nove- 
sium, Neus ; Noviodunum, Noyon ; Telo Martins, 
Toulon ; Tridentum, Trent, &c. &c. 

These instances besides answering the immediate 
purpose, serve also to exemplify nearly all the re- 
marks concerning the alphabetic interchanges and 
transmutations. It may be observed, that many 
names of places whose orthography has been fixed, 
are much abbreviated in common speech : as Ciren- 
cester pronounced Sister, &c. From this as well 
as from all the foregoing examples, it plainly ap- 



42 

pears not only that long words are contracted into 
shorter forms, but that the longer the name the 
greater the contraction ; as in all cases the more 
difficult and unmanageable a word is, the greater is 
its corruption in process of time. The following in- 
stances are taken almost at random. 

Eleemosyna, ^/mA' ; Episcopos, ^w^o;?; (Abis- 
po, Sp. ; Vescovo, It. ; Eveque^ Fr. ; such are the 
caprices of etymology !) Presbyter^ Priest ; Obli- 
i-ERO, X Bluther, Blur, Blot ; Collect, Cull ; Coil 
(Cueillir, Fr., &c.) ; Bull, (as Irish Bull,) Blunder, 
contr. of Balena a terra, It., Bal^na ad terram, 
a long-established expression ; Seacalf, Seal ; Des- 
picATus, Despite, Spite ; Succumb, Sink ; Secure^ 
Sure; Semino, Sow; Sluice from Seclusus; Count, 
contr. of CoMPUTO ; Come, Commeo ; Chair, CA- 
THEDRA ; Round, Rotundus ; Sedate, Sad, &c. 

Such instances might be multiplied indefinitely ; 
but the reader is referred to the Dictionary, where 
the modes and stages of transmutation and contrac- 
tion are more fully presented to view. We merely 
subjoin a few examples of proper names. 

Benjamin, Ben; Robert, Rob, Bob ; Joseph, Joe; 
Timothy, Tim ; Richard, Ricl^, Dick ; Edward, 
Ned; WiUiam, Will, Bill; Henry, Harry, Hal; 
Alexander, Ellich ; Thomas, Tom ; Margaret, Meg, 
Peg ; Elizabeth, Eliza, Bet, Bess, Betty, &c. ; 
Sarah, Sally ; Maria, Mary, Molly, Moll, Poll, &c. 
&c. Some of these contracted forms belong to the 
lower orders of the vocabulary, like all those called 



43 

fiash or c«w^ terms ; but others have all the dignity 
of polite usage. What iias thus happened to proper 
names, also happened in days of yore to common 
nouns and to all words ; as is still their fate in the 
language of the vulgar, and in the Saxon-like litera- 
ture of the uneducated members of society. 



VERBAL CORRUPTIONS CONSIDERED. 

These have been already (though not professedly) 
adverted to, and are, in many respects, identical 
with verbal contraction ; but there are many changes 
of words from their orio;inal form which could not 
be included under that denomination ; and, there- 
fore, a few separate remarks may be applied to them 
here. 

1. Words that are new, strange, and unusual, (as 
all foreign terms are when first imported or adopted 
both to the ear and the mouth,) are most liable to 
be corrupted or changed from their original form. 
There is an idiom in the sounds and in the pronun- 
ciation of every people, as well as in their phraseo- 
logy, and they naturally bring the sounds and pro- 
nunciation and words of other languages ( when 
introduced among them) to their own idiom or 
manner. The French (as the Greeks did before 
them) do so professedly and systematically ; and ail 
people, however unintentionally, do so to a con- 
siderable extent. Hence, the reason why words 



44 

adopted from other languages are often so much 
disguised, like foreigners in the costume of the 
country, that their original features can hardly be 
recognized. Who would suppose, for instance, that 
our yes^ yea^ ay^ are the French out P There is not 
a single letter the same. The same thing would 
happen to words of recent importation, if we did not, 
by a sort of fashionable pedantry and servility in 
borrowing almost peculiar to us, put the new patches 
of French orthography as well as French pronuncia- 
tion upon the old garment of our language, which 
was sufficiently motley before ; for no confusion of 
tongues or mixture of all the dialects of Babylon 
could well equal it in anomalies. If we were to spell 
that truly fashionable word ennui as it is pronounced, 
it would be ongwee ; but who would suppose, judg- 
ing by the eye, that the one was metamorphosed 
into the other ? It is sufficient to have indicated the 
fact : almost every page of the Dictionary supplies 
examples and illustrations. 

2. Words that are long and hard or difficult are 
always liable (before language is fixed by grammars 
and dictionaries) to be much corrupted, or changed 
from their first form. This has been already indi- 
cated. 

3. Words much in use or which frequently pass 
from mouth to mouth in the hurry of common 
discourse, are exceedingly liable to be corrupted. 
Hence, all familiar household words, (and that part 
of our language which has descended from Saxon 



45 

times consists chiefly of such,) are usually much 
more metamorphosed in process of time than the 
learned or literary and scientific terms of a people : 
hence, also, the etymologic difficulty attending the 
particles of every language. 

. 4. The terminations are the parts of words which 
are most liable to be corrupted, as is evident from 
a careful inspection of any given number of terms. 
The physical reason of this seems to be, that all 
men, being naturally idle and careless, are usually 
impatient to get to the end of any thing they have 
to do or say ; and therefore hurry the one out of 
their hands and the other out of their mouth badly 
finished. The above fact, as well as that imme- 
diately preceding it, has been treated of by Home 
Tooke with all the acuteness and dexterity which he 
applied so successfully to his subject, when his un- 
derstanding was not biassed by theory. 

5, There are many verbal corruptions which 
originated not in carelessness, hurry, or mere mis- 
pronunciation, but in deception occasioned by simi- 
litude of sound, in new, strange, or foreign words, 
to that of some others well known: thus. Chartreuse, 
was corrupted into Charter-House ; Asparagus, cor- 
rupted into Sparrowgrass ; Reticule, Ridicule ; hus- 
trino, It. a shining silk, cor. into Lutestring ; Ben- 
zoin, Benjamin ; Lanterna, cor. into Lanthorn, as 
there happened to be horn in the old lantern, &c. 
&c. Thus did sheer ignorance produce many strange 
corruptions, as well as an etymology contemptibly 



46 

absurd ; for even that of Home Tooke is often of 
this description when connected with the Northern 
Origin. 

6. It is with the ignorant and the uneducated 
that the grossest verbal corruptions chiefly originate 
and abound ; hence they have, for the most part, a 
radical meanness and vulgarity about them, (unless 
they have descended from Saxon literature and pos- 
sess the dignity of Gothic antiquity,) for they never 
possessed sufficient merit to rise to any office of dis- 
tinction or station of respectability. Not to adduce 
such striking instances of gross corruptions (for the 
examples above, as well as those given under Verbal 
Contraction, are sufficient) as Bamboozle^ Bother, 
Balderdash, Rip or Rep, (i. e. Reprobate,) Demi- 
rip, &c. &c. : even such instances as Hint, i. e. Inti- 
mate, Get, Git, Gist, (i. e. Gesta, i. e. Res gesta,) 
&c. are rather low words : and hence the difficulty 
of supporting the familiar or middle style with suffi- 
cient dignity, or even decent respectability : a task 
to which neither the genius of Swift nor the taste of 
Addison was fully equal. 



47 



VERBAL ELLIPSIS OR SYNTACTIC ABBREVIATION. 

That which is here indicated has the same rela- 
tion to composition, i. e. to sentences and members 
of sentences, as verbal contraction has to single and 
separate words : the one is the leaving out of letters 
and syllables ; the other is the omitting of whole 
words. Both are to be accounted for in the same 
manner ; both originate in carelessness^ or hurry ^ or 
the love of ease, natural to all men ; who usually 
take the shortest cut to the object of their thoughts 
and affections, and employ elliptic modes of ex- 
pression, for the same reason that they adopt short- 
hand and other contractions or abridgments of la- 
bor. This is ever their short, direct course, when 
engaged in good earnest about their wishes and 
wants, their business and necessities. From various 
causes, manner^ or style^ will differ among indivi- 
duals and among nations : that of one may be ex- 
ceedingly full and redundant in expression ; that of 
another may be as remarkable for shortness and 
abbreviation : some from mental taste and habit are 
lavish of words, as Cicero ; others are sparing of them, 
as Sallust. There are overpowering temptations to 
verbal redundancy and prolixity; as when attorneys 
and reviewers and writers for publishers are paid so 
much per line or so much per sheet ; and there are 
temptations to the opposite extreme, as when the 



48 

writer has to pay for an advertisement ; for his words 
are likely to be feiv^ even if not well ordered. But 
all such considerations produce no sensible effect on 
the language of a people^ w^hich is always tending 
to abbreviation in all its modes of expression ; for 
there is this difference between the contraction of 
words and that of expressions : the former may be 
checked in process of time, the latter never can be 
checked ; and though there be inconveniencies as 
well as advantages attending this elliptic process, it 
is amenable to no grammatic law, and, therefore, is 
always in full operation. 

That which is now under consideration was too 
obvious to escape observation, and, therefore, it has 
been frequently noticed by philological and meta- 
physical writers, as, for instance, by the ingenious 
Tucker : it was familiar, indeed, to mere gramma- 
rians ; but Mr. Home Tooke has treated of ellipsis 
in such a clear, full, and satisfactory manner, that 
it is unnecessary to enlarge on the question in this 
place, and, therefore, a few illustrations will suffice. 

It is difficult (if, indeed, possible) to select a 
single sentence or expression which is not elliptic. 
Take such instances as the following, which happen 
to occur at the moment : A prince of the blood, i. e. 
blood royal, or royal blood ; a man of colour, i. e. 
dark colour ; a man of rank, of family, of fortune^ 
&c., i. e. of high rank, of good family, of great for- 
tune, &c. Nor is the ellipsis filled up by thus sup- 
plying such omitted terms, for there is hardly a 



49 

single wordj (if, indeed, any word,) in any single 
expression, which had not, at one time or other, 
more words connected with it; which were dropped, 
because the meaning of the expression having been 
once well established and effectually associated with 
some of the leading terms, the others could be omit- 
ted, and yet the signification retained. For example, 
in the expression, Man of quality — Man is a con- 
traction of human, which requires being (or some 
equivalent word, if the ellipsis be filled up) to be 
connected with it : then Quality (a contraction of 
equality^ as Qualis is of ^Egiualis) manifestly re- 
quires to be connected with other words ; for without 
their assistance, it could not express the meaning 
which is now suggested or indicated by it. There 
is, in reality, ellipsis (i. e. something left out) not 
only in every expression, but in almost every impor- 
tant word ; such as Forma, (meaning beauty,) i. e. 
Forma venusta ; Libel, i. e. Libellus famosus, 
&c. &c. And to each of such words, the synecdoche 
of the grammarians (that is, a part put for the 
whole, or, as the word implies, something that is not 
expressed is implied in or to be taken v/ith that 
which is expressed) as really belongs, as in those 
cases where they have applied the term. For ex- 
ample, FAMOSUS requires Malus, or some equiva- 
lent term ; or rather, Fama, the noun on which the 
adjective is formed, requires Mala ; for Fama of it- 
self means merely a saying or report : when, there- 
fore, a dyslogistic y i. e. taken in a bad sense, it had 

E 



60 

originally mala or some equivalent word connected 
with it. 

Not to dwell longer on what is so very obvious, 
that proof and illustration are alike redundant ; this 
seems the proper place to explain a matter connected 
with it, not quite so evident, and which, therefore, 
has been very little considered, not only by the com- 
mon class of writers on Philology and Logic and 
Metaphysics ; but even by the acute Home Tooke, 
whose antipathy to such writings as those of Harris 
and Lord Monboddo, (highly distinguished, it is 
true, by inanity or flatulency,) seems, in some in- 
stances, to have obscured his understanding or biassed 
his judgment. That jail words have originally a dis- 
tinct, separate, independent meaning of their own, 
is a point which he has laboured with as much suc- 
cess as acuteness ; but there is another consideration 
which (so far as we remember) he has overlooked, 
or which he has refused to admit, viz. that there is 
a syntactic as well as verbal meaning ; i. e. there is a 
meaning effected by composition, which cannot exist 
without it ; for no word or number of words can, 
by any possibility, convey that signification which is 
conveyed by a sentence, any more than the figures 
of arithmetic can indicate separately what they do in 
every possible mode of combination. The supposi- 
tion, indeed, would be as absurd as to believe that a 
thing can be and not be at the same time. Now^ 
though we cannot say that the meaning of words in 
composition, or, when put together to make a sjen- 



51 

tence, is independent of that meaning which each of 
them has separately, (as may be inversely affirmed,) 
yet we can say and do affirm, that the one is wholly 
distinct from the other. And if this fact be lost 
sight of, we are likely to fall into as great errors as 
in supposing with Harris, that many words have no 
meaning at all till they are put together ; as if compo- 
sition had a creative power of producing something 
out of nothing. This is so absurd as hardly to merit 
notice ; but if we do not attend to the distinct mean- 
ing produced by the combination of words, we shall 
be involved in not only etymologic and grammatic, 
but logical or metaphysical absurdities, such as those 
which are so plentifully spread over grammars and 
dictionaries and metaphysical disquisitions ; not to 
mention the thousand controversies that literature is 
heir to. For instance ; the real attempt (a very un- 
successful one) of almost the whole of the Herculean 
labour of Dr. Johnson is to give, not, as it professes, 
verbal, but syntactic meanings ; and, for the same 
reason that it assigns ten, twenty, or thirty significa- 
tions to one word, it might have assigned as many 
hundreds and thousands. It is, indeed, as so often 
pronounced, a great work, but it is not great enough 
by many thousand degrees for its real though not 
professed purpose ; in reference to which, it is as 
truly little, as it is, in every respect, defective and 
unavailable. 

Syntactic being entirely distinct (though not inde- 
pendent of the verbal as that is of the syntactic) 

e2 



52 

from verbal signification ; it follows, that the e/- 
liptic process can proceed almost (if not altogether) 
interminably, without absolutely defeating (though 
it may and often does mar) the purpose of language ; 
so that in process of time, there is in every sentence, 
every member of a sentence, every expression, and 
almost every word, much more implied than is ex- 
pressed ; much more indicated than is really signified 
by the sign employed ; which acts as a prompter 
rather than reciter or narrator. 

Mr. Dugald Stewart is not far from the truth when 
he says, that the office of language is not so much 
to convey ideas as to call up trains of thought in the 
mind. The only thing about the statement to which 
we demur, is the term office, (as if such were the 
original design and use and formation of language,) 
and the subserviency to a particular theory intended 
by the remark, and for which, indeed, it was evi- 
dently got up. But it is always more pleasant (in 
a candid state of mind) to praise than to blame ; 
and, therefore, the author avails himself of the pre- 
sent opportunity of confessing his regret for the con- 
temptuous asperity employed by him towards this 
writer on a former occasion, when he resolutely ex- 
pressed himself with more ardour (which easily de- 
generates into violence) than prudence or candour. 
His opinion is, indeed, essentially the same : he does 
not consider Mr. Stewart a very profound thinker, 
sound reasoner, or correct writer on many subjects ; 
but he does consider him an elegant and accom- 



53 

plished litterateur^ and an amiable and worthy man ; 
who is, therefore, entitled to all the respect due to 
mental culture and moral excellence, and to all the 
civility and politeness due to a gentleman. The au- 
thor is. deeply sensible that sarcastic severity is a sin 
which doth most easily beset him; and he much 
fears that something of it will appear in the present 
work, notwithstanding all his desires and endeavours 
to prevent it. But so far from approving, he deplores 
this unfortunate tendency, — because it is not less 
adverse to usefulness than contrary to candour and 
charity. Such is his serious sentiment and settled 
conviction ; but, as happens to all imperfect crea- 
tures, his feelings are often too powerful for his con- 
science ; his spirit is frequently at variance with his 
judgment ; for he has acquired but small mastery of 
himself in the difficult art of self-denial : but having 
most sincerely, without any false pretence or mental 
reservation, made the public his father-confessor, he 
hopes for some indulgence if not entire absolution ; 
and that the intellectual offering now presented, will 
meet with a candid reception ; for his most earnest 
desire and strenuous endeavour is to render it of somq 
service to mankind. 



^4 



THE MUTATIONS OF VERBAL SIGNIFICATION CON- 
SIDERED. 

That the significations of words as well as their 
external form^ (their spelling and pronunciation,) 
are changed in the course of time, is abundantly ma- 
nifest. Mr. Home Tooke, indeed, asserts — " Every 
word retains always one and the same meaning. Un- 
noticed abbreviation in construction and difference of 
position have caused the appearance of fluctuation, 
and have misled the grammarians of all languages 
both ancient and modern." This very explicit, un- 
qualified, and determined statement, had long an 
irresistible but embarrassing effect upon the under- 
standing of the author ; and though free almost to 
a fault from reverence for authority in opinion, that 
of Home Tooke could not be disregarded, as he was 
not a man that was apt to write unadvisedly or un- 
soundly ; especially when not under the influence 
of the theory of a Northern Origin. 

That a word generally retains one and the same 
meaning is certainly true ; but that every word always 
retains one and the sanae meaning, is a proposition 
contrary to the most decisive evidence that can be 
obtained on such a subject. Indeed, it would be 
very unaccountable if all the grammarians of all lan- 
guages both ancient and modern, had been misled 
by mere appearances to believe that words have se- 
condary as well as primary meanings, if no such 
distinction really exist. But the question admits 



55 

of being easily settled by obvious and indisputable 
facts. Sycophant^ for instance^ originally meant an 
informer^ (one who gave information against persons 
exporting figs, the exporting of which was forbidden 
by law at Athens,) now it means a flatterer : Hea- 
then originally meant of or belonging to a nation 
(like Gentile from Gens) ; Pagan originally meant 
a villager ; but both these terms have long meant an 
idolater or worshiper of false gods : Ccesar, at one 
time, was a proper name, (and, perhaps, before that, 
meant having btishy hair,) but it has long meant, as 
in German, Kaiser, and in Russ, Czar, an emperor ; 
which word emperor, originally meant the com- 
mander or general of an army. A hundred such in- 
stances might be easily collected. The question here 
is about a fact ; not the manner of accounting for it, 
or the process by which it was effected ; which is, 
perhaps, after all, what Mr. Home Tooke intended ; 
so that we may have been all the while contending 
with a phantom — which, however, it is worth while 
to put down, if only to prevent in future such an- 
noyance as the author once suffered when more in 
the dark concerning these inquiries. 

The reasons of all such shiftings and changes of 
verbal signification are very obvious after a little in- 
quiry and reflection. Indeed, they have already 
been virtually explained ; and, therefore, to avoid 
repetition as much as possible, we shall only subjoin 
a few remarks. 

As almost every expression (if there be any ex- 



56 

ception) is elliptical ; so with almost every word (if 
here, also, any exception exist) there are several 
ideas associated in the mind of those who employ it, 
besides the individual idea which it was intended 
and employed to indicate. The reason of this is too 
obvious to require any metaphysical abstrusity of 
theory or of explication. There is no such entity in 
either the natural or moral, physical or metaphysical 
world, as disconnected individuality. There is not 
any one single entity, be it an object of our senses, 
a sensation, an idea, a perception, a notion, (or what- 
ever you may choose to call it,) which can exist 
alone or in absolute solitude and separation from 
company. [The fathomless speculations of theological 
metaphysics are'Vholly excluded from our present 
view.] However much, therefore, it may be in- 
tended as the sole or exclusive object of indication 
by any verbal sign or by any contrivance whatever, 
it is after all but one of a flock or group : it may be 
the first or largest of the flock ; it may be the most 
prominent or most distinguished figure in the group ; 
it may occupy the fore-ground in the representation, 
but it is always accompanied by a number of other 
entities. Hence what is called the principle of 
mental association, or the association of ideas in the 
mind, so liberally philosophized since the days of 
that original and acute and profound thinker — that 
consistent reasoner — that masterly writer, but ill- re- 
quited author, the Philosopher of Malmsbury ; for 
the poorest of those who have borrowed from him 



57 

have liberally repaid the obligation by kicking at his 
reputation : and even the simple-minded Mr. Locke 
only mentions his writings to say that they are justly 
exploded. Such is the timidity or ingratitude of the 
disciple — who is^ in this, as in so many other respects, 
a perfect contrast to his great Master, the teacher 
and founder of that philosophy of which he was 
such an unworthy apostle. No one surely can sup- 
pose that the author is pledged to approve or defend 
all the opinions of Mr. Hobbes, — some of which are 
as opposite to his mental habitudes as can be reasona- 
bly wished ; but even these he would have put down 
by the authority of reason — not by the violence of 
obloquy. 

The fact above indicated, i. e. the complex or 
gregarious nature of ideas and thoughts, is the origin 
of many shiftings or mutations of verbal signification. 
Here a single illustration is better than a thousand 
sentences. Take an instance already adduced. 
Heathen primarily means of a nation ; or, taken sub- 
stantively, i. e. elliptically, one of a nation; and in 
the plural, (ETHNICOI, as it occurs in the New 
Testament,) the nations : but the nations of the 
earth were all considered by the Jews, idolaters or 
worshipers of false gods : the word for nations was 
so associated from the first with this idea, as to be 
in process of time identified with and indicative of 
it only. This Jewish idiom (with many other Jew- 
ish notions and idioms) accompanied the Christians 
(who were, at first, nearly all Jews) from Judea 



58 

into Europe^ where it remains to the present day : 
and in the use of all such words as Heathen and 
Gentile, we, Christians and nations as we are, speak 
after the manner of the Jews. Take another instance 
of a similar nature and origin : Pagan primarily 
means a villager, a countryman ; or, as we have it 
corrupted through the medium of French organs of 
speech^ a peasant : but the peasants continued true 
to the venerable religion of their fathers ; and wor- 
shiped Pavor and Pallor, and Pan and Priapus, in the 
good old way of their first faith and early associa- 
tions, long after the citizens and burgesses of Rome 
and of the large towns (for in these, missionaries 
usually first erect the standard of conversion, or se- 
cretly endeavour that the little leaven may leaven the 
whole lump of a large population) had apostatized 
from Heathenism to Christianity. Hence, the word 
for villager or peasant was associated in the minds 
of the Christians, (i. e. the town s-people,) with the 
idea of idolater or worshiper of false gods ; and being 
thus associated, it was soon identified with and ex- 
clusively indicative of that idea, like the term hea- 
then, A thousand such illustrations might be given 
of the same process, of a similar changing or shifting 
of verbal signification : so that Home Tooke wrote 
more confidently than advisedly when he asserted, 
that every word retains always one and the same 
meaning. It is true, as he supposes, that abbrevia- 
tion in construction and change oi position, (though 
what he meant by change of position is not very ob- 



59 

vious^) do cause appearances of fluctuations, where no 
fluctuations really exist ; but there are many changes 
of verbal meaning which cannot thus be accounted 
for, and which are explicable only on the principle 
of the association of ideas and thoughts in the human 
mind, resulting from and answering to the complex 
nature of things as existing in the universe, and, 
therefore, as presented to the human senses. 

Metonymy^ (like Synecdoche, &c. &c. &c.,) as 
handed down from doating, garrulous antiquity, 
(somewhat blind as well, for mere speech is usually 
the last faculty greatly impaired,) and as taught in 
the schools, (those nurseries and sanctuaries of im- 
plicit faith and sacred devotion towards venerable 
doctrines and high authorities,) is mingled with error 
and muffled in confusion ; but it has evidently a 
basis or substance of truth: and neither Quintilian 
nor Vossius was wide of the mark of correct defini- 
tion, when it was defined by the first, " The put- 
ting of one word for another," and by the last, " A 
trope^ [if disposed to pun, we would say this is a 
trip^ which changes the name of things that are na- 
turally united, but in such a manner as that one is 
not the essence of the other." The disciple is seldom 
greater than his master in the art of thinking and of 
expressing thought ; though he usually excels him 
in the commenting art of verbosity. Ecce Aristotle 
and Plato ; Locke and Hobbes ; Vossius and Quin- 
tilian. 



60 



THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF MUTATION IN VERBAL 
SIGNIFICATION. 

These may be summed up in the following par- 
ticulars : 

1. When the name for a class of beings comes in 
process of time to indicate a circumstance or pecu- 
liarity connected with them : as, Heathen or Pagan 
to denote Idolater ; Scythian, Goth, Turk, Tartar, 
Vandal, &c., to denote barbarity and cruelty ; or 
any person remarkable for these qualities ; Jew^ to 
indicate any one remarkably false and overreaching, 
&c. &c. Here a hundred instances might be given^ 
all agreeing as to genus, but differing as to species, 

2. When names, originally descriptive of office, 
agency, &c., come to be merely obscure titles or 
empty compliments : as, Duke, Marquis, Count, 
Earl, Lord, Knight, Squire, Mr., Sir, Madam, Lady, 
Miss, &c. &c. All such words may be compared to 
the Roman emperors, who were great whilst living, 
but who acquired deification by death ; (and if the 
body he dead without the spwit, so surely is a word 
without the meaning ;) only this business of deifi- 
cation has been rather too abundant in the supply to 
keep up the value of the commodity; and such titles 
as Lord, Knight, Doctor, &c., are becoming ticklish 
distinctions. 

3. When old names remain, though that to which 
they were originally applied, and of which they were 
descriptive, has ceased, or has been superseded by 



61 

something else : as, paper, originally the name of an 
Egyptian flag of leaf; volume, i. e. something rolled 
up — a scroll : Burg, Burgh, Burrow, was originally 
a fortification or fortified place ; province, originally 
signified a conquest, or country gained by successful 
war. 

Words of this description are very numerous. 

4. When words, expressive of action or quality, 
are appropriated to objects as common or proper 
names. This is the most prolific origin of verbal 
multiplication or vocabular augmentation ; for thus 
an indefinite number of nouns are produced by a 
few verbs and adjectives : thus,yac^, feat, Jight, Jit, 
&c., are all originally one word ; and thus the names 
of many animals and natural objects, as well as of 
metaphysical entities, are resolvable into one adjec- 
tive, or one verb ; which one adjective or verb is so 
exceedingly diversified in spelling and pronunciation, 
partly by design and partly from accident, as to seem 
not one and the same word, but a great multitude of 
separate and independent words : hence, one of the 
causes of tautology, inanity, obscurity, and absurdity, 
so often observable in the speeches and writings of 
men. 

5. When a word shifts from a primary to a sec- 
ondary meaning, or, when it passes over to a concom- 
itant idea, or from the cause to the effect, or vice 
versa, N. B. This is essentially the same as No. 1, 
only in a more comprehensive form to prevent mis- 
take. 



62 

6. When a word is employed metaphorically; for 
the very term metaphor^ as also trope, (figure does 
not^) imports a changing or turning of the word to 
another use than that which it originally had. 

N. B. Many words have lost their literal and re- 
tain only their metaphoric import or use ; many 
have passed hack from their metaphoric to a lite- 
ral, or more properly, to an unmet aphoric applica- 
tion. 



VERBAL DIVERSITIES AS TO RANK OR 
RESPECTABILITY. 

As the members of a community range in differ- 
ent classes of political rank, so do the words of a 
language. There are here, also, high and low and 
middle classes. On these distinctions a few remarks 
will suffice. 

1. A large class of the lower orders of words has 
been already indicated ; for those gross verbal corrup- 
tions which have originated with the ignorant and 
the uneducated, (and which have not descended from 
Gothic antiquity, when ignorance had the honour of 
being universal,) are radically vulgar, and perma-^ 
nently doomed to hopeless degradation ; for though 
butchers' and barbers' sons may mount the bench and 
ascend to the highest station near the throne, their 
intellectual offspring — their verbal productions, never 
rise to the dignity of polite usage. 

2. Many words are low or vulgar for the same 



63 

reason that old-fashioned garbs are so considered ; for 
there is a fashion in language as in other things, and, 
like that of the world, it is ever passing away. New- 
terms and expressions and modes of speech are con- 
stantly displacing the old, vyhich linger among the 
lower classes long after they have been discarded by 
those who are at the fountain of influence ; and the 
very circumstance of obsolete words and expressions 
being found only, or chiefly, among the lower classes 
in society, stamps their character and seals their fate. 
Thus the same words, which are very honourable in 
one dialect of a language and part of a country, are 
very dishonourable in another; and this forms one 
of the most obstinate diflficulties which the natives of 
Scotland have to contend with, in speaking and 
writing English agreeably to polite usage : for as the 
dialect of the North is older by three or four centu- 
ries than that of the South, persons accustomed to 
the old-fashioned dialect are apt to imagine that they 
are keeping the very best company when guilty of 
employing most vulgar and disreputable expressions. 
This fact accounts not only for the Scotticisms, but 
^ov \he vulgarisms so often detected in the produc- 
tions of those beyond the Tweed, who have written 
with freedom and energy; as it accounts also, on the 
other side, for the artificial stiffness and polished 
feebleness of those Scottish authors who sacrifice all 
to taste — who dread nothing so much as the impu- 
tation of vulgarity, and who covet nothing so much 
as the reputation of elegant writing. It would be 



64 

easy to produce instances ; but they might appear 
invidious ; and we have endeavoured to indicate, hi 
the Dictionary, the rank and character^ as well as 
other attributes of w^ords. 

We have noticed (and the verb notice is too con- 
venient to be lightly parted with), that many words 
become vulgar in process of time, merely from being 
old-fashioned ; but old fashions are frequently brought 
up again ; and there is a sort of sentimental archaism 
raging at present among the lovers of the olden lite- 
rature, who, ever and anon^ cite an obsolete phraseo- 
logy for the very nonce of showing its whilom beauty, 
too long suffered to wrinkle unadmired in neglected 
desuetude. If utility could be put in competition 
with sentimentality, we would address a word of in- 
quiry, or of exhortation, to these admirers of the an- 
tique in literature ; but the fit will not last long ; for 
the sentimental passion is extremely inconstant : and 
though some words that had become both vulgar 
and obsolete, have been thrown up to the very top 
of fashionable literature, there is some danger of a 
reaction, and that many of the happiest phrases of 
Shakspeare will be hackneyed mto contemptible 
vulgarity. 

3. Many words become vulgar, in course of time, 
in consequence of being associated with gross objects, 
actions, and ideas ; and the notion of grossness is 
every day becoming more fastidious in a state of pro- 
gressive refinement. This is one of the most opera- 
tive causes of mutation in living languages : and it is 



65 

amusing to observe the variety of attempts that are 
made to clothe gross entities and vulgar ideas in de- 
cent and polite phraseology^ and the rapid succession 
of terms that are first degraded and then discarded 
in the performance of this ungracious duty. Not to 
present the most obvious^ and, therefore, the most 
disgusting instances, i. e. to our refined notions and 
sensibilities, take the following: Guts was, at one 
time, a very decent term, and fit to appear at the 
very top of Saxon literature ; but it became so very 
rude, upon long and familiar acquaintance, as to be 
vrholly unbearable in any genteel family, and was 
turned off for no fault in the w^orld but vulgarity: its 
place was supplied by Belly, which (as Guts, indeed, 
before it) was brought all the way from Italy for the 
sake of gentility. Belly was long considered a very 
well-bred term, and .fit to appear in the very best 
company; and ladies and gentlemen, masters and 
misses, might, without fear, and without shame, 
freely converse with it either in public or in private. . 
But servants will become rude when they remain 
long in place, and Belly (though possessing every 
advantage of foreign extraction and musical sweet- 
ness) having become offensively familiar, and disgust- 
ingly vulgar, has been turned off without a character, 
and must be content with such low and poor places 
as can be found in town and country, but can never 
hope to enter a genteel family. For the present. 
Stomach and Abdomen, two learned foreigners, sup- 
ply, between them, as well as they can, the place of 

F 



66 

Belly; but they are only upon trial, and there is no 
chance whatever that they will long give satisfaction. 
It is supposed, indeed, that genteel people, finding 
so much plague and trouble with such attendants, 
will contrive, in future, to do without them alto- 
gether. They have already greatly reduced their 
establishment; but retrenchment may, and doubtless 
will, proceed yet further; for if such convenien- 
cies, or (as would seem) such indispensable requi- 
sites as necessary, jyrivy, dunghill^ can be well 
spared, why may not such vile luxuries as sweat, 
spittle, not to add any word that comes in a more 
questionable shape to agitate our sensibilities ? The 
fact is, that Pantomime can be successfully substi- 
tuted for much of the old vulgar Drama of real life. 
It may be urged, that all this results from false re- 
finement and delicacy, and that things ought to be 
called by their proper names. But this is a Uto- 
pian doctrine wherever there is such an entity as re- 
Jinement; and when the question is about the degree 
or the extent, who is to be judge or sovereign arbiter ? 
Who has the right and the power to say, authori- 
tatively. Hitherto shall thou come and no farther P 
The calling of gross things by their proper names is 
one of the privileges of the dead languages. 

Many instances similar to the above might be 
presented ; but one more will be sufficient. JVhore, 
Harlot, Strumpet, were once considered as decent 
names as the person designated by them deserved ; 
and no English mouth refused to utter them: but 



67 

in process of refinement it was discovered that vice 
loses half its turpitude by losing all its grossness ; 
and the old ugly names, whore, harlot, strumpet, 
were superseded by Bonaroba, Chere-amie, common 
woman of the town, girl of the town, street- walker, 
&c. &c. ; for no sooner is a word or expression ap- 
plied for the purpose of a designation to that which 
is essentially base, than it is contaminated with vul- 
garity, and then discarded as wholly unbefitting a 
genteel mouth. Putting the bona roba of polite 
phraseology on Madam Meretrix, cannot save or re- 
deem her character ; but her contaminating influence 
degrades every gallant protector identified with her 
reputation. From one, learn all ; what happens in 
this case, happens in a thousand instances ; hence 
an ever-operating cause of mutation in living lan- 
guages, which can never hejixed so as to be rendered 
immutable, any more than time can be arrested in 
its course. 

4. There is a set of low words and phrases which 
originate in wretched metaphor, or in allusions to 
things of a mean and sordid nature, such as the fol- 
lowing : to curri/ favour, i. e. literally taken, (which 
is always the test of propriety as to metaphor,) to 
procure the favour of any one by scratching his 
back; hence that truly graphic substantive, claw- 
back ; to cram a subject or person down any one's 
throat, or to saddle him with a heavy expense, or to 
blink his argument, or to haul him over the coals, 

f2 ■ 



68 

or to put him in a cleft-stick. All such expressions 
can never be elevated into lasting dignity, however 
closely they may be associated with the genius of a 
Swift or a Butler (just as low-life may be associated 
w^ith the genius of Hogarth) ; nay, though they may 
have the high sanction of parliamentary authority ; 
and certainly, though not omnipotent, it can produce 
very extraordinary effects upon the verbal currency 
of the kingdom ; so that instead of the Parliament 
being that colluviarium of corruption, v^hich some 
represent, it is evidently a fountain of influence as 
well as of political power. 

It is not necessary to indicate the respectable 
classes of w^ords, which are of course too numerous 
to be easily arranged under distinct denominations. 
In general those terms and. expressions, and modes 
of speech, which have the highest political, intellec- 
tual, literary, and scientific origin, possess the great 
est dignity ; for the general tendency is for words to 
sink from a higher to a lower — not to rise from a 
lower to a higher rank. Instances of the latter pro- 
cess are, for the most part, those of extraordinary 
individual merit. Thus, terms which were at first 
objected to as Scotticisms (such as the verb notice^ 
&c.,) and provincialisms, or as too technical and 
plebeian for classic composition, have, in course of 
time, risen to respectability in the language. All 
such words as are evidently useful, peculiarly conve- 
nient, distinctive, and descriptive, are sure of adop- 



69 

tion, whence soever derived : they are a kind of 
professional adventurers that are sure to make their 
way in the world^ and to come into general practice. 

There is a very large number of w^ords^ found in 
books and dictionaries, which do not properly rank 
either with the high or the low — the genteel and re- 
spectable, or the mean and vulgar order : and which 
may be designated the awkward squad, or pedantic 
company ; except that their proper name would be 
legion, for they are many. They are all large, un- 
wieldy, clumsy, awkward, and uncouth, as Dr. John- 
son. They never had any recommendation but their 
learned bulkiness and strangeness ; and therefore they 
have been unsuccessful candidates for admission into 
general and established usage : their proper place, 
therefore, is, (where we mean to put them,) an old 
musty glossary. 

All our words, indeed, are, properly speaking, of 
learned origin ; and many of them may have been 
introduced unnecessarily ; but mere pedantry has 
had very little share in their introduction. They 
have, for the most part, been adopted, not from the 
classic, but from the low and (strange as the asso- 
ciation may appear) philosophic Latin ; not directly 
from the schools, or from mere scholars ; but from 
the professions, and in connexion with the arts and 
sciences, and institutions, and inventions, and im- 
provements, and business of life. The schools and 
colleges are, indeed, distant reservoirs of the regular 
sup])lies ; but the cisterns whence they are directly 



70 

received, the immediate channels of communication, 
are Government, Legislation, Jurisprudence, Theo- 
logy, Physic, &c. &c. ; or, to include all in two 
words, the sciences and the arts. The great agents 
in the formation of our language (as of every lan- 
guage) have been authors (such as ever had any in- 
fluence — for there are many writings that never had 
readers) and orators, legislators and lawyers, minis- 
ters of state and ministers of religion, physicians and 
apothecaries, inventors and improvers in all the sci- 
ences and arts which are in any respect connected 
with the wants and wishes of men. These are the 
influential, the assimilating, the transmuting agents 
of every people. Hence the obvious reason, as be- 
fore intimated, (not to apply the fact to other ques- 
tions at present,) why the English Language is 
partly Greek, but chiefly Latin. 



VOCABULAR REDUNDANCY AND DEFICIENCY. 

These extremes not only meet in the same lan- 
guage ; but in proportion as it is remarkable for the 
one, it is also remarkable for the other. The most 
defective and least philosophic languages present 
these attributes so strikingly as to render them ob- 
vious to every inquirer. Take, for example, the He- 
brew and the Saxon ; and making all due allowance 
for the sacred character of the former (and if the 
reader chooses, its divine origin) ; they are, perhaps. 



71 

pretty equal: i. e. when considered as philosophic 
instruments, or intellectual apparatus. No offence 
is intended to the lovers of Saxon and of Hebrew 
literature : and having been at some trouble to form 
an opinion, they ought not surely to feel aggrieved 
when that opinion is expressed. 

Hebrew and Saxon (as all languages in a greater 
or less degree) are remarkable for vocabular redun- 
dancy and vocabular deficiency: they have too many 
and too few words : they have too many of one sort 
and too few of another: they have a superfluous 
multitude of words of general import, but they are 
poor and destitute of particular, distinctive, and defi- 
nitive terms : they will fiimish you with a thousand 
names for one and the same entity (like the adorable 
Arabic, to which its worshipers give the praise and 
glory of a thousand names for a sword); but there 
are a thousand entities for which they supply no 
name. 

Both these opposite qualities are evidently great 
faults — not perfections in language. As to the one, 
there never, probably, has been but one opinion, 
and that sufficiently correct; but concerning the 
other, much error and confusion have prevailed. 
One will eulogize the copiousness of a language by 
exaggerating the number of names which it pos- 
sesses for one object ; another, like Dr. Blair, will 
affirm, that there are no two words, in any one lan- 
guage, that are precisely synonymous. The last is 
one of those random positions which are so freely 



72 

hazarded on all subjects, concerning which, men 
consider themselves fully justified, by established 
usage, in thinking little and saying much. The 
usual parade of verbal copiousness is, as if a savage 
were to demonstrate how extraordinary his wealth is 
by exhibiting a thousand hows^ kept for his own ex- 
clusive use ; or, as if a mechanic were to prove the 
amazing abundance of his tools by exhibiting a thou- 
sand hammers. But arguments and illustrations are 
equally misplaced when applied to questions so strik- 
ingly obvious, that mere statement is sufficient re- 
futation. 

What is wanted is a sufficient number of apt tools 
or verbal instruments for every intellectual purpose. 
Tried by this test, the English has, perhaps, as little 
imperfection as any language, ancient or modern ; 
though it has much useless and cumbrous copious- 
ness of one description of terms, and considerable 
deficiency of another. It has (like every other lan- 
guage) too many terms oi general and too few of 
particular import : it has too many generic and too 
few specific and individuaUc terms : there are a thou- 
sand names for one logical genus ; but many of the 
logical species and individuals have no names as- 
signed to them. These two opposite faults (which 
are mutually proportionate) are two of the grand 
imperfections of language ; and principal causes of 
much of the error, deception, misunderstanding, con- 
troversy, and other evils which have prevailed, and, 
probably, will prevail to the end of the world: for 



73 

if the moral nature of human beings were as good as 
that of angelsj they could not rise to any very high 
state of perfectibility without a much less imperfect 
instrument of verbal intercommunication than they 
yet possess. We are not very sanguine concerning 
remedies for any existing evils ; but it is something 
to indicate their causes ; the knowledge of which^ if 
not available for any great improvement, is at least 
likely to remove the mental malady of false theory. 



LOGICAL DIVERSITIES OF VERBAL SIGNIFICATION. 

It is very probable^ if not quite certain, that the 
author would not have invited attention to the dis- 
tinctions indicated above, but for a small publication 
of the acute and discriminating Jeremy Bentham, 
entitled, A TABLE OF THE SPRINGS OF 
HUMAN ACTION; which possesses the multuni 
in parvo of logical availableness, in a much greater 
degree than could be supposed from the silent neg- 
lect which it seems to have experienced. 

There can be no doubt that the fact so distinctly 
stated in the Table of the Springs of Human Ac- 
tion, was previously as familiar to minds in any 
considerable degree logical, as was the Juct or prin- 
ple of mental association before it was so distinctly 
stated by Mr. Hobbes. Indeed, some remarks of 
the latter (as, where he distinguishes among different 
names applied to the same thing, according as it is 
liked or misliked) approach so very nearly to the 



74 

very distinctions employed by Mr. Bentham, that 
the author concluded^ (so reluctant are we to concede 
the claim of originality,) that the Philosopher of 
Westminster had borrowed from the Philosopher of 
Malmsbury. But to his surprise he found, by con- 
versing with Mr. Bentham, that the writings of 
Hobbes were almost (if not altogether) wholly un- 
known to him, owing to an antipathy contracted in 
early life ; which is not wonderful when we consider 
the political antithesis, or the political bias and tem- 
perament of the two men ; who, but for this and 
one other circumstance, belong more to the same 
logical species of intellect than any two philoso- 
phers, ancient or modern, concerning whom the 
author can venture a critical judgment. What that 
other circumstance is, the discerning reader (i. e. in 
such matters) will perceive when reminded of the 
reiterated declaration of the author of Tripos, that 
he distrusted nothing so much as his own elocution 
(what we now term diction)'^ and when it is inti- 
mated, that his wards wer^efew and well ordered. 

The philosophic genius of Bacon naturally fixed 
his attention on things (long the exclusive objects of 
consideration with Mr. Locke, if his own testimony 
be admitted) rather than words; but the intimate 
connexion of the last with the first, in the reasonings 
and discourses of men, could not escape the notice of 
a man of such intuitive sagacity — such grasp of com- 
prehension — such inductive dexterity — such extend- 
ed range of reflection: and what he has so often 



75" 

reiterated concerning the dry, pure light of the un- 
derstanding, not drenched in the will and affections, 
has evidently as much reference to the verbal appa- 
ratus employed by the mind, as to the state and 
actings of the mind itself. 

But it is not necessary to refer to such high in- 
tellectual evidence (for v^e admit no authorities and 
precedents in the common law of logic or perfect 
reason of philosophy) to come to a decision concern- 
ing the verbal distinctions already indicated, and 
now to be stated and explained. The diversities of 
terms, as, fond, invidious, descriptive, are familiar to 
the mouths and ears of men : all we intend^ there- 
fore, is to render, if possible, that which is already 
in their possession of more value to them, by show- 
ing the uses to which it may be applied : and they 
are not usually averse to information and advice how 
to improve and increase their property; especially 
when given in the spirit of meekness and charity, or 
candour and kindness ; and it is our earnest desire to 
have such a recommendation and introduction to a 
favourable interview with their understanding, apart 
from the sinister influence of all such evil counsellors 
as prejudices and passions. It is our sincere regret 
that we do not bring more conciliatory qualifications 
to our task ; and that we are under the necessity of 
employing the assistance of men whose very names 
rouse the prejudices and antipathies of many readers. 
But such readers should be admonished to practise 
self-denial ; without which, they cannot be the dis- 



76 

ciples of truth : they ought to give a candid recep- 
tion to sound principles, even if presented by the ill- 
favoured enemy of all righteousness and social order 
(and even he is supposed to have published truth) ; 
or if associated with the most malign author that ever 
appeared in the ascendant of literature ; much more 
w^hen proceeding from a philosopher of radical phi- 
lanthropy, whatever radical objections may attach to 
some of his opinions. 

All words that have any import, (for some are as 
destitute of import as mummies are of life,) are ob- 
viously distinguishable into passioned and unimpas- 
sioned, or passionate and dispassionate : the one in- 
dicate thoughts, the other sentiments; i.e. the one 
indicate mere perceptions or acts of the understanding 
(tlie dri/ pure light of reason, as Bacon terms it) ; 
the other indicate thoughts as imbued with (or as 
Bacon terms it, drenched in) the affections : in the 
one, logical entities are presented unaccompanied by 
any judicial decision concerning them by the affec- 
tions ; in the other, they are accompanied by a sen- 
tence of approbation or disapprobation : in the one, 
there is no indication of feeling, any more than if 
the mind were pure abstract intellect, incapable of 
emotion ; in the other, there is an expression of 
feeling, either of like or of dislike, either of pleasure 
or of displeasure, or (what is the lowest degree of 
the same thing) either of approbation or of disap- 
probation. 

As all words are either impassioned or unimpas- 



77 

sioned ; so all the former obviously admit of being 
ranged in two opposite classes^ answering to the op- 
posite states or acts of mind, which are expressed by 
ihe terms approbation and disapprobation, affection 
and disaffection. Hence, after separating all words 
into impassioned and unimpassioned, Mr. Bentham 
again divides the first division into eulogistic and 
dyslogistic, and thence denominates the unimpas- 
sioned class neutrologistic. 

Perhaps the scientific purpose intended, is as well 
accomplished by these as by any designatives that 
could be invented. If there be any objection to 
them, it is, that they are not sufficiently popular. 
Perhaps approbative, disapprobative, and neuter or 
neutral, would be more obvious distinctions : non- 
probative might be objectionable. But what is 
w^anted for such purposes is a designative phraseology 
of fixed and definite import : that which is least 
popular is most likely to ensure these qualities ; and 
it is a tribute of respect due to inventors and im- 
provers not hastily to reject or lightly to alter the 
terms employed by them ; so that we have no wish 
to change those of Mr. Bentham. 

The distinctions indicated above admit of easy 
illustration ; for there is hardly a sentence or ex- 
pression in any language which will not serve the 
purpose. Take the following : Man is naturally 
mortal, is plainly a neutrologistic sentence, and 
mortal is particularly the neutrologistic word ; for it 
expresses a fact admitted by the understanding, in 



78 

the admitting and expressing of which those entities 
called prejudices have no share ; those entities called 
affections stand quietly by neutral spectators : or, to 
write less rhetorically and more logically, there are 
no prejudices and affections in existence as to the 
fact enunciated, any more than there are waves when 
water is perfectly still ; for passions are related to 
what we call mind, as waves are to what we call 
water. We do, indeed, speak of waves and pas- 
sions, (though contrary to the very letter of the 
phraseology,) as if they were permanent and stable, 
never-ceasing entities ; but this is one of the many 
unfortunate modes of speech which fill our minds 
with perplexity, and our discourses with absurdity. 
We must not, however, diverge from the point pro- 
posed. 

Concerning the neutrologistic character of the sen- 
tence — man is naturally mortal, there can be no 
controversy. It is one of those (comparatively few) 
positions which never produce difference of opinion 
or of affection ; for no human being was ever yet 
offended any more than gratified by this affirmation ; 
or angry with his neighbour for making the asser- 
tion : but substitute almost any other adjective for 
mortal in the sentence, and it is immediately per- 
ceived to be either eulogistic or dyslogistic. Thus : 
Man is naturally wicked, or false, or cruel. Each 
of these adjectives is dyslogistic: it expresses not a 
simple conviction of the understanding, but a sen- 
timent, i.e. an opinion imbued with what we call 



79 

the affections ; and so widely do some minds differ 
from the sentiment ias to consider it false, and cruel^ 
and wicked. Take the other extreme : Man is 
naturally sincere, or kind, or virtuous. Here each 
of the adjectives is highly eulogistic : it indicates not 
an indisputable fact or mere admission of the under- 
standing ; but a sentiment of the mind connected 
with feeling. To discover how impassioned all such 
words both of the eulogistic and dyslogistic kind 
are, nothing more is necessary than to observe their 
usual effects upon the tempers and conduct of men. 
What rapturous applause or violent disapprobation 
will they not produce in private companies and public 
assemblies, according to their respective relations to 
the sentimentality of the persons present! What 
mutual affection or hatred will they not effect ! They 
may be compared to the ensigns of hostile factions, 
round which kinsmen rally, they know not why, for 
mutual slaughter. It is even dangerous to mediate 
between the eulogistic and dyslogistic belligerents ; 
and the author expects no favour from either party 
for the neutrologistic service which he kindly offers. 

A thousand illustrations could be employed with 
as much ease as that one instance employed above ; 
which was adopted for no other reason than it hap- 
pened to be the first which presented itself: but one 
instance is as sufficient as a thousand examples ; for 
we write only for those who are at the trouble to 
think ; and who do not require a mass of explana- 
tion. Supposing the reader to be now in possession 



80 

of the three logical distinctions of verbal significa- 
tion — it will be proper to attend to some" important 
circumstances directly connected with them. 

From the very nature and general habitudes of the 
human mind; from the history .of man ; from our 
own observation and experience, it might be inferred 
that language has much of an impassioned and little 
of an unimpassioned character ; that it is composed 
chiefly of eulogistic and dyslogistic, and contains 
few neutrologistic terms. Human beings as infalli- 
bly impress their own likeness upon their mental and 
moral, as upon their natural offspring ; they create 
not only religious and political systems, but words 
after their own image. Hence the obvious simili- 
tude of idiorhatic peculiarity to national character ; 
or the correspondence which exists between the 
genius of a language and the genius of a people ; for 
according as the one is more or less impassioned, (not 
to advert to other circumstances here,) so is the 
other. But wdiatever natural, mental, moral, and 
political diversities may exist in mankind, they all 
agree in this, that they are more under the dominion 
of passion than the guidance of reason : hence, every 
language (even the wisest, comparatively considered) 
has much of the attribute of absurdity : and every 
language (even the most neutrologistic) has much of 
^passionate and little of a dispassionate character. 
Every language, therefore, is very fit for Rhetoric, 
(taken in the widest possible import,) but very unfit 
for Logic ; is an apt and powerful weapon of passion 



81 

but a very untoward and defective instrument of 
reason : wonderfully invented and admirably con- 
structed for all the sentimental purposes of poesy 
and all the demagogue purposes of oratory ; but 
ill adapted to the plain practical uses of sound phi- 
Ibsophy. 

We are not wiUing to be more explicit or par- 
ticular at present^ or to follow the above statements 
to all their obvious consequences : not that we are 
afraid to storm the strongest holds of established 
opinion^ or to do violence to the most sacred idols of 
sentimental prejudice ; but prudence dictates for- 
bearance. 

Persons who are neither fondly nor resolutely sen- 
timental may be ready to say^ Why preach to us the 
humiliathig doctrine of the radical depravity of lan- 
guage, unless you can give us comfortable assurances 
of a miraculous regeneration ? But it is surely of 
some importance to know things as they truly are, 
whether we can change them or not ; for without 
that knowledge there is no chance of improvement. 
There is very little reason to hope for a perfect lan- 
guage ; but in proportion as we understand the na- 
ture, and become acquainted with the imperfections, 
of that which we have, the more are we likely to 
make a proper use of it ; and to guard against the 
errors and prejudices and other evils which result 
from its" unfitness for logical purposes : the important 
principle of utility will be more steadily kept in view; 
inquiry after truth will be more successful; dis- 



cussioti will be more fair and honourable, and the 
temper of disputants more candid. He who strives 
not for rhetorical display or polemic victory ; who 
aims only at truth in theory and utility in practice ; 
who wishes not to take any unfair advantage of the 
understanding of those to whom he speaks or writes, 
will endeavour to employ neutrologistic phraseology : 
and he who is determined to prevent, if possible, 
others from taking an unfair advantage of his under- 
standing, will carefully watch the verbal movements 
and will guard against the stratagems and assaults of 
impassioned language, consisting of eulogistic and 
dyslogistic terms. And if he do not absolutely 
renounce the mental luxuries of rhetorical arts and 
productions, he will be as little imposed upon by 
them as by the drama and the opera and masque- 
rade ; which he knows to be got up for effect ; and 
to have as little connexion with right opinions and 
natural feelings, as the fancies and passions of men 
have with sound reason. 

Before leaving this subject, it may be useful to 
subjoin a few distinct remarks. 

1. Out of the most multitudinous vocabulary, (as 
that, for instance, of Dr. Johnson, greatly enlarged 
by Dr. Todd, who has recommended it to the public 
by enriching it with many thousands of added words,) 
very few terms, comparatively considered, can be se- 
lected that are absolutely neutrologistic ; i. e. purely 
intellectual, without any mixture of sentiment and 
prejudice and passion. The whole verbal multitude 



83 

(with the exception of a mere handful of neuters) 
belong either to the eulogistic or dyslogistic faction. 
They may be distinguished by many shades or 
grades of character as partisans ; but they all divide 
and vote either with the Ayes or the Noes, They 
are all approbative or disapprobative, respectful or 
disrespectful^ admirative or contemptuous^ fond or 
invidious. Some merely nod assent or dissent — else 
say ay or no to the question : others cannot help ac- 
companying their vote with a strong expression of 
feeling : some hail the decision with the most rap- 
turous applause ; others assail it with violent explo- 
sions of hatred. 

Between two such powerful factions it is not won- 
derful that the interests of such neutrologistic entities 
as truth and utility should often suffer (and it is be- 
come a kind of axiom that all parties are against the 
individual that is of no party) ; or that rhetoric 
(taken in the widest import) should produce wonder- 
ful effects ; for the dextrous rhetor is almost as po- 
tent as Orpheus ; or^ that even concerning the plain- 
est questions which can be presented to the human 
understanding, there should be endless debate — in- 
terminable controversy. 

2. The Neutrologistic terms of a language are not 
only very few ; they are liable to be violated and 
prostituted so as to become as mischievous as those 
base-born words which had, originally, a eulogistic 
or dyslogistic nature. Take a recent instance : what 
adjective could well be more neutrologistic than ra- 

g2 



84 

dical was only a few years ago ? But it had the mis- 
fortune to be adopted by a particular class of political 
reformers; and the consequence has been, that this 
humble member of the vocabulary is already strongly 
dyslogistic — deeply imbued with contempt and aver- 
sion as applied in the speeches and writings of all 
such men as rely more on the force of nicknames 
than the force of arguments ; and, to many a mind, 
radical is nearly, if not quite, as odious and exas- 
perating as democrat or revolutionist. In this man- 
ner have thousands of words been perverted from 
their primitive simplicity of unimpassioned import ; 
and when once thus corrupted, it is as impossible for 
them to recover their original innocence as it is for 
a prostitute to regain hev virgin purity. There are 
almost numberless instances of dispassionate, becom- 
ing passionate phraseology ; but we know not of a 
single instance of a contrary process or transmu- 
tation. 

3. Eulogistics and dyslogistics are properly anti- 
thetic or rather antipathetic to one another ; but 
many words are made to perform both parts : thus 
saint is a gracious eulogistic, as employed by one 
description of persons ; but a most ungracious dyslo- 
gistic as employed by another : in the diction of Mr. 
Wilberforce, it betokeneth religious affection ; in that 
of William Cobbett, it expresses unholy disaffection : 
in the one, it indicates sincere partiality ; in the 
other, sarcastic bitterness. Any eulogistic may thus 
be sarcastically converted into a dyslogistic: hence 



85 

many terms have the two opposite characters at the 
same time, according to the tempers and opinions 
of the agents employing them : and hence, also, the 
radical and permanent change from the one extreme 
of fixed and universally received import to the other, 
which words experience in process of time ; for either 
may be changed into the other : but in the struggle 
between what is termed the a:ood and the had sense 
of a word, the evil spirit generally prevails : for we 
have many examples of beautiful and admirable ap- 
prohatives being changed in course of time into such 
ugly disapprohatives as to be quite frightful ; but we 
have few examples of the contrary process. The 
reason is obvious: ridicule, if not the test of truth, 
is a test which few people are willing to have either 
their persons or their opinions tried by ; and they as 
naturally shrink from odious charges. When, there- 
fore, dyslogistic phraseology is applied to that in 
which persons are interested or implicated — they 
feel like a man accused of a horrible offence ; who is 
willing to change not only his abode but his veiy 
name rather than encounter the imputation or bear 
the odium. Such words as despot and tyrant were 
once, very loyal names ; but it would be hbel or 
treason to apply them now to such persons as they 
used to designate: pedant diXi^ pedagogue were once 
of very innocent and laudable import ; but the per- 
sons so designated became ashamed of their antique 
name, and consider themselves insulted or persecuted 



86 

when it is now applied to them : parson and priest 
were at no great distance of time very respectable 
and even honourable names ; but instead of being 
proud of them or making a noble stand for their eu- 
logistic dignity against the lewd laity; the reverend 
gentlemen^ to whom they were applied, became 
ashamed of them ; and were willing to assume such 
a mean, servile name as minister, or such a clumsy 
designation as clergyman; and if these be fated to 
become dyslogistic, they also will be discarded. 

It was remarked in another place, that the ten- 
dency is for the members of the vocabulary to sink, 
not to rise in the scale of dignity ; as we have nume- 
rous instances of polite words and phrases becoming 
vulgar ; but few or no examples of a contrary pro- 
cess. The same holds with the eulogistic and dyslo- 
gistic distinctions : we have almost numberless in- 
stances of the former sinking into the latter, but few 
instances of the latter rising into the former : and 
these few instances are only found when the persons 
or parties intended to be mortified and disgraced by 
a dyslogistic designation or nichiame, take kindly to 
it and glory in it ; for then the malignant intention 
of their enemies is defeated ; and a reaction com- 
mences in favour of the persecuted. Christian (as 
well as Nazaf^ene) was, doubtless, at first, a nick- 
name ; but the persons thus designated took kindly 
to the invidious distinction and gloried in it, as well 
as m that ignominious peculiarity of their religion. 



87 

the cross. The result was, that both rose in process 
of time into the highest estimation. Quaker was 
originally a nickname ; but the Friends who have 
always possessed too many respectable qualities to 
be a degraded caste, (for in that case the most ho- 
noured designation ever invented must have sunk 
with them,) took^ if not cordially, at leasts patiently 
and meekly to their nickname, and described them- 
selves as the people commonly called Quakers : the 
result is, that Quaker is become a eulogistic, or, at 
least, has lost all its dyslogistic import: and it is 
as respectable in common usage as their own fond 
Friend, with less quaintness. Whig also was a nick- 
name ; but the persons so designated took cordially 
to the invidious designation, and, like Paul with the 
cross and the name of Christ, gloried in it, and thus 
converted it into an honourable title and political 
talisman, whilst any character for political honesty 
and consistency remained with the party ; for when 
a party is degraded, all its names and distinctions are 
degraded with it. The courtly cavaliers were too 
much devoted to eulogistic legitimacy, too fastidious 
about titles and orders to take kindly to the low, 
vulgar, upstart title of Tory, The consequence is, 
that Toryism, as a designation, is still in disgrace ; 
hut liad its secret friends taken heartily to it, and 
rallied round it, and gloried in it, they would have 
found it a far more tahsmanic watch- word than the 
name of Pitt, with all the supplementary appendages 
of throne and altar, and king and country. 



88 

All that was intended by these instances was illus- 
tration ; which being, it is hoped, fully accomplished, 
it is unnecessary to detain the reader longer with the 
subject; but there is one other consideration that 
deserves to be stated. 

It is now sufficiently apparent, perhaps, that as 
language has little of a dispassionate and much of a 
passionate character, so many entities both physical 
and metaphysical (for the last term would be really 
useful if not abused) have no neutrologistic designa- 
tion : they are never presented to the understanding 
as mere strangers, whose character is to be discovered 
by acquaintance ; for their name proclaims their cha- 
racter : it is either a badge of honour or a badge of 
disgrace ; and those wearing it can have no interview 
with the understanding, absolutely free from all pre- 
judice or sinister agency ; but are introduced by the 
high authority of universal consent either as approved 
or condemned, as good or bad, as amiable friends or 
hateful enemies. 

The entities that have three distinct sets of names, 
i. e. neutrologistic, eulogistic, and dyslogistic, an- 
swering to the views and feelings of the persons em- 
ploying them, are sufficiently numerous (even if no 
other cause existed) to produce incalculable diversity 
of opinion, endless controversy, and factious hostility. 

It may be said. What do all these remarks prove, 
but that we are essentially sentimental and emotion- 
ate ; and, that if there be any thing wrong about 
eulogistic and dyslogistic entities, it is not so much 



'8^ 

our language as it is ourselves that are in fault ? Be 
it so t we do not dispute the fact t we only endea- 
vour to render you duly sensible of it. Perhaps that 
which has been indicated is a great excellence in our 
own composition as well as in our language ; and in- 
finitely preferable to the dry^ -pure light of reason ; 
just as many prefer fiction to fact, and romance to 
history : only recognize the wide difference between 
them^ and the opposition of the one to the other ; 
and do not attempt to make a precious compound of 
things so radically incompatible ; for nothing surely 
can well be more blundering than to mistake rhetoric 
for logic; or to attempt to unite and intermix them ; 
or to hope to reason sentimentally and to senti- 
mentalize rationally. If, therefore, true theory and 
sound philosophy, increase of knowledge and intel- 
lectual improvement, less misunderstanding and more 
candour, more deliberative discussion and less illiberal 
and angry controversy, more of enlightened union 
and less of blind factious hostility, &c. &c; if all 
these were nothing, it is, at least, something to avoid 
the charge of absolute folly. 



90 



THE GRAMMATIC DISTINCTIONS OF WORDS. 

We commence with what are commonly called 
the parts of speech ; which are usually said to be 
nine in all ; but which Mr. Tooke, as well as others 
before him, reduced to two at the most. Many of 
this author s remarks are not only acute but just ; 
and it will be proper to examine what he has ad- 
vanced concerning the different kinds of words. 



THE DOCTRINE OF HORNE TOOKE EXAMINED. 

Mr. Horne Tooke (as well as Plato and other 
ancients, and Vossius and other moderns) resolves 
all the parts of speech into noun and verb. Thus 
far he is very explicit and very positive ; but farther 
he deposeth not so peremptorily as a witness is wont 
to give evidence who testifieth what he hnoweth of 
Ms own Jknowledge. He affirms, indeed, that the 
verb is properly a noun ; but he adds, that it is 
something more than a noun : what that something 
more or verbalizing property is, he either could not 
or would not inform the world. Here the sprightly 
author of the Diversions^ (which are most diverting 
when least instructive,) coquets with the reader ; or, 
what is more probable, shies at his subject; for 
though his manner seems to say. You do not know 
what I have got here ; we suspect he had nothing at 
all, save a little aftectation. We have long regretted 



91 

the destruction of his etymologic papers, (though 
he had, probably, good reasons for committing them 
to the flames; for it was, perhaps, one of the most 
judicious acts of his whole life,) merely from eager 
curiosity to learn how he was to dispose of the verb 
and to disengage himself from the wonderful promises 
which he had held out to the world : not that we 
think the world has suffered any material loss by the 
catastrophe ; for without an etymologic regeneration, 
almost miraculous at his period of life, we consider 
it morally impossible for him to think a good 
thought or speak a right word concerning the de- 
rivation of a great part of the English language. 

The opinions of Home Tooke (though hitherto 
wholly barren of any important effects or useful 
results) have met with cordial reception: and all 
who now write about grammar acknowledge his 
authority. That acute thinker and hardy reasoner, 
that heretical Catholic, the late Dr.Geddes, expressed 
the hope of being able to prove at some future period 
that all verbs were originally nouns. In this opinion 
the learned Doctor was avowedly saying after the 
quondam vicar of Brentford ; who also hoped to be 
able to accomplish very extraordinary things at some 
future period. Numerous learned testimonies in fa- 
vour of his opinions might be adduced from recent 
grammatic works. The following is a pretty good 
synopsis of his principles: it is extracted from a 
recent grammar, the ninth, we beheve, in the Saxon 
line of descent ; and which is remarkable for nothing 



93 

so much as the author's diffidence of his own under- 
standing, and his extreme deference for the gram- 
matic and metaphysical inanities of other writers ; a 
most curious collection of which is presented to the 
public. 

Here is the synopsis : — 

'^ Every abstract term in language had, originally, 
a sensible, palpable meaning, generally a substantive 
meaning. Adjectives are, originally, cither nouns 
or verbs. Pronouns take their rise from nouns, 
verbs, and numerals. Articles, or, more properly, 
definitives, are nothing but pronouns used in a par- 
ticular sense, and for a particular purpose. Inter- 
jections are chiefly verbs ; some are substantives. 
Adverbs, for the most part, originate in adjectives ; 
a few are verbs and nouns. Conjunctions and pre- 
positions are generally verbs and nouns. 
. " Nouns constitute, in general^ the primitive words 
in all languages. Verbs are the first-born offspring 
of nouns. They arc nouns employed in a verbal 
sense ; at least the greatest quantity of words are of 
this class ; a few, indeed, appear to have started into 
being at once as verbs, without any transmigration 
through a substantive stated 

If the sum and substance of Hornc Tooke's gram- 
matic Diversions were prepared to go into a nut- 
shell, we know not that more could be made of them 
concerning the parts of speech. But as usually hap- 
pens, we have not the pure, unqualified doctrine of 
Home Tooke from his disciples : it is much diluted 



93 

— mii€h reduced below spirit-proof — greatly adulter- 
ated (like the philosophy of Hobbes in the Essay 
of Locke) when it conies to be retailed out to the 
public. We have marked the admixture by italics. 
Nouns, it appears, do not absolutely constitute the 
primitive vi^ords, but do so in general. Verbs are 
the first-born offspring of nouns ; some, it appears, 
however, did not come into the world in the ordi- 
nary way of generation ; they are the offspring of no 
vocabulary parents whatever ; tket/ started into being 
at once as verbs, without any lingering process of 
parturition, nay, without any tra^ismigration through 
a substantive state. 

We have not time at present to admire the poetic 
beauties of the passage, or the sublime doctrine of 
transmigration ; and it would be unfair to make 
Home Tooke responsible for the admixtures and 
admissions of his disciples. His coquetting inex- 
plicitness respecting the verb as being a noun, yet 
something more than a noun, has been noticed. If 
he had not entangled himself with en and th and to 
as meaning do, and as being necessary verbal ad- 
juncts, it would have been easy to understand what 
(we should have supposed) he must have intended 
by verbs being something more than nouns. The 
following are examples of nouns, employed in a ver- 
bal sense, without the assistance of any verbal ad- 
junct: Gallant men eye the fair — hand them a chair, 
or seat them on a sofa — bachth^w friends— ^/ace their 
enemies — spur their horses— cAam their dogs — ken- 



94 

nel their hounds — hag their game — table their money 
— stake their property — stack their hay — shield their 
honour and pistol its enemies. A thousand such in- 
stances might be collected^ (without much trotible^) 
of sensible^ palpable, substantive meanings, and of 
nouns employed in a verbal sense : and it is probable 
that most of those words which now appear in the 
abstract state of mere verbs, were previously names 
of physical entities. 

It is true, that in all such instances as those pre- 
sented above, there is ellipsis, i. e. something left out: 
gallant men back their friends and face their foes ; 
i. e. do back their friends, and do face their foes ; 
which is the old mode of the sentence, and that 
which we still adopt when we wish to speak em- 
phatically : and even then there is much more im- 
plied than expressed ; there is much verbal ellipsis : 
but for the same reason that the meaning remains 
when so much expression is left out, the same mean- 
ing might have been conveyed if the omitted ex- 
pression had never existed. Children, (as also 
foreigners,) when beginning to speak our language, 
can make themselves understood by merely pro- 
nouncing nouns. My child, now playing round my 
table, has just said, (few parents require to be told 
how interestingly and persuasively,) "P«, me book.'* 
The fond father understood her as readily, and as per- 
fectly, as if she had said, " Please, my papa, will 
you give to me a book ?" or, '' Please, my papa, will 
you take up one of these books from this table, with 



95 

one of your hands, and then put it into my hands ? 
for I wish to amuse myself with handling it and 
looking at it ; but I am not tall enough to reach it, 
else I would not be at the trouble of asking you to 
hand it to me." 

If language had the rude origin which Mr. Home 
Tooke always supposes, it is certainly very improba- 
ble that such a metaphysical part of speech as the 
verb, according to our modern notions of it, (i. e. a 
word which signifies to he, to do or suffer, &c.,) had 
any distinct, separate, or independent existence. Add 
to this the fact, that a very great number of verbs (as 
well as of all the other parts of speech) are, without 
doubt or controversy, resolvable into nouns. 

Now we believe full justice has been done to the 
statements contained in the Diversions of Purley: 
and now, perhaps, many persons would suppose the 
subject to be satisfactorily disposed of: all words are 
resolvable into nouns, and nouns are names, and 
names are just names ; and what more would we be 
at ; for as we cannot proceed ad Infinitum, we must 
stop somewhere ; and where so proper to stop as 
with the names of things? This has certainly some 
show of reason, and is much more satisfactory than 
putting the world on the back of an elephant, and 
the elephant on the back of a tortoise, and the tor- 
toise on the back of nothing : it does happen, how- 
ever, that where the difficulty seems to end with 
Home Tooke and others, it only begins with the au- 
thor : not that he hopes for a palpable demonstration 



96 

as to the origin of language; which is nearly as 
troublesome to the philologist as the origin of cvil^ 
or of matter^ is to the theologian (for origins are a 
vexatious race of entities); but he does think that 
the noun requires to be explained and accounted for 
as much as any part of speech whatever. Granting 
that it is resolvable into no other part of speech, what 
is it to be resolved into ? If it be the offspring of no 
vocabulary parent, nor the result of any etymologic 
transmigration, but started into being at once a per- 
fect substantive or full-grown noun; whence, or how 
did it start into existence ? Did it drop down from 
heaven, or leap out of the mouth of Minerva, as she 
did out of the brain of Jupiter ? In sound, sober 
earnest — What is the reason of its imposition or ap- 
plication ? For if (as Mr. Tooke so often affirms) 
there be nothing arbitrary or unaccountable about 
language ; if (as he also reiterates) that be a trifling 
etymology which does not assign the cause or dis- 
cover the reason for the imposition of any word ; it 
is doing just nothing towards satisfying my philolo- 
gic curiosity, to resolve all the parts of speech into 
the noun, and then tell me that a noun is a name. 
If said noun be in any respect descriptive, (and 
without this, according to Mr. Tooke, it could be no 
significant part of speech^) what is its descriptive 
property — how did it acquire its designative power? 
Here also we shall attempt supplementary expli- 
cation, that full justice may be done to the claims 
set up for the noun as being the sole, original, and 



97 

pre-existent part of speech. The position of Mr* 
Tooke, that there is nothing arbitrary about lan- 
guage^ we consider perfectly sound : and to assert 
the contrary is (we conceive) manifestly absurd. 
Even those unmeaning names, with which we, in 
these modern times, are so familiar, called proper 
nouns, were originally descriptive of some quality, or 
expressive of some circumstance ; and in the succes- 
sive re-application of them there is an assignable rea- 
son for their imposition ; for such names as Robert, 
John, Alfred, Hunt, Fox, &c., are not employed at 
random, as we might suppose such new and strange 
names as those fabricated by Swift ; and even, for 
the employing of these, there is an assignable reason. 
Perhaps, indeed, nothing more was ever intended, 
(where the understanding had any share,) by affirm- 
ing the meanings or applications of words to be 
arbitrary, than that, where any one word is em- 
ployed, some other word might have been used for 
the same purpose ; or, that terms are liable, in pro- 
cess of time, to have their signification changed ; or, 
that they may be differently understood, and applied 
in different ages, and even by different persons of the 
same age and country: and thus, (as frequently hap- 
pens in controversy,) one person might affirm, and 
another might deny, that words are arbitrary signs ; 
and be all the while disputing about nothing. 

But there could be no controversy with Mr. Tooke, 
or with any who adopt his opinions, concerning the 
present subject of inquiry. He frequently states, as 

H 



98 

an essential etymologic principle^ that there is a rea- 
son for the imposition of every word ; i. e. that it 
has a descriptive significancy, without which, he in- 
sists, it has no significancy whatever. In what, then, 
does the significancy of the noun consist ? Or, in 
other words, whence does the noun itself derive its 
existence ? This question seems to admit of an easy 
and satisfactory answer in reference to a certain class 
of words, formed by what is called onomatopceia, or 
imitation of the sound :^ such as, buzz, hum, grunt, 
croak, cluck, click, clock, clang, clink, clash, whir, 
whiz, cuckoo. Many more might be presented ; but 
these are sufficient as a specimen ; which is all that 
is intended here. If such words be considered nouns, 
here is a satisfactory origin of the noun (and perhaps, 
after all, of the whole of language) ; for we have only 
to suppose the letters that indicate, to the eye, the 
sounds of which such words consist, contrived, (ar- 

* The author long doubted (probably from his sceptical dis- 
trust of received opinions) whether any words had such an origin j 
and he remembers conversing with an ingenious etymologist and 
learned lexicographer, who disallowed onomatopseia most peremp- 
torily : the argument employed was, that if it really existed, the 
different languages would have the same name for the same sound 
or creature emitting it ; which they have not. But the author is 
now convinced that there is no solid ground for the doubt once 
entertained by him 3 and that there is no force in the learned 
Doctor's argument 3 for the diversity in the name (say cuckooj 
for the same sounds in different languages, is easily accounted for 
in the same manner that other words are greatly diversified in 
external form among different nations and in different ages. 



99 

bitrarily, or conventionally, if you will — for other 
marks might have been invented and employed,) 
like the signs in the gamut, (and the one is just as 
much a philosophic contrivance as the other,) merely 
for the purpose of literature ; i. e. to extend the uti- 
lity of the spoken by rendering it also a written lan- 
guage. This is certainly the simplest manner of 
accounting for the origin of language ; and simpli- 
city is in such a case, if not a demonstration, at least 
a strong argument: and the author is persuaded, 
that it vv^as his suspicious aversion to received opi- 
nions that rendered him, at a former period, so 
ardent a theorist and strenuous an advocate for the 
language of signs being prior to the language of 
sounds: but sceptic aversion to any opinions, is as 
unphilosophic as credulous partiality; though the 
mind usually vibrates from the one extreme to the 
other before it rests in the centre. The only rea- 
sonable doubt seems to be, vs^hether onomatopaeia 
could supply a sufficient stock or capital to begin 
the business of language w^ith: all that the author 
will venture to affirm, is, (for he is not confident,) 
that upon the maturest reflection, aided by consider- 
able inquiry, he thinks it neither impossible nor im- 
probable, that such a small number of words, as 
seem to originate directly in an imitation of natural 
sounds, should be available for every verbal purpose; 
and that, in the slow process of ages, they should 
have multiplied into the greatest multitude that now 
form the largest vocabulary with which we are ac- 

h2 



100 

quainted. But to the question ; that, disposing of it, 
we may pass on to inquiries less doubtful and more 
useful. 

It has been said above, if such words as hum, 
i)u%%, croak, &c., be considered nouns, we have, at 
once, in onomatopseia, a satisfactory origin of the 
noun as the first part of speech, and that from which 
all the other parts are derived : but a question still 
remains, ought subh words to be regarded as prima- 
rily nouns or verbs ? They indicate not any sub- 
stantive entities, but sounds ; and what are sounds 
but actions or motions, produced by certain im- 
pulses given to the atmosphere, whose vibratory 
movement acts upon the tympanum, or beats upon 
the drum of the ear. With hardly any exceptions, 
(we have not cuckoo as a verb,) the imitative words, 
considered nouns, are also verbs ; there are many 
imitative verbs without any corresponding nouns ; 
and in most of those imitative words, which are both 
verbs and nouns, tlie former were evidently prior to 
the latter : as, click, cluck, clack, before clock and 
the noun clack, &c. &c. The fact seems to be, that 
the last is related to the first, as effect to cause ; and 
that the verbal sense is not only first, in the order of 
nature, but the proper original signification ; whence 
the substantive meaning is derived by metonymy, or 
by mental association, as intimated in a former part 
of the work. 

It is somewhat curious that the author, after all 
his philological scepticism, should come round (so 



101 

far as he has any belief — for minds that have been 
much agitated with doubt seldom settle down into 
entire confidence) to the ancient faith ; for according 
to the old philologists, verbs were before nouns. It 
is impossible, indeed, to study either the Greek or 
Hebrew language, (not to mention any other,) with- 
out perceiving, that if many verbs can be resolved 
into nouns, there are also many which cannot be 
thus disposed of: and though the doctrine of Home 
Tooke seems, at first view, very convincing ; the 
converse of it seems more evident when we prosecute 
our inquiries : for whatever may have been the origin 
of language, nouns in general evidently derive their 
existence either from attributives or from verbs ; and, 
unless the testimony of onomatopceia be given in 
favour of the noun, as. the pre-existent part of speech^ 
we have no hesitation in affirming, that though 
many verbs and adjectives be derived from nouns ; 
it is equally true, that all nouns are derived either 
from attributives or verbs ; i. e. before they were 
substantives they were either attributives or verbs. 

This whole inquiry is more curious than useful; 
and is important only as it serves to abate groundless 
confidence, to remove false theory, and to make us 
better acquainted with the meaning of words ; for it 
matters very little what we call them, (or what part 
of speech was first or last,) provided we understand 
them. It is with considerable pleasure that we now 
move forward to other inquiries. 



102 



THE PARTS OF SPEECH CONSIDERED. 

It is wittily said by the author of Hudibras, that 

'* All a rhetorician's rules 
But serve him for to name his tools 3" 

and it may be truly affirmed, that most of the gram- 
matic terms and distinctions serve no useful purpose 
whatever : but because they had existed in con- 
nexion with Greek and Latin, it was thought ne- 
cessary or proper to transfer them to the Enghsh 
language. 

The different sorts of words, or parts of speech, 
are said to be mwe, viz.. Interjection , Article^ Cbn- 
junction, Preposition, Adverb, Adjective, Pronoun, 
Noun, and Verb. 

INTERJECTION. 

The interjection, or as it is better termed, the ex- 
clamation, is hardly worthy of notice, being merely 
an expression of sudden and strong emotion ; for 
which purpose almost any verb, noun, adjective, &c., 
may be employed ; for the only natural exclamations 
are the vowel sounds, as enunciated by a sudden ac- 
tion of the heart, when strongly excited by surprise, 
joy, grief, &c. Perhaps these natural, unpremedi- 
tated expressions of strong emotion, (which are found, 
with very little diversity, in all languages,) ought to 
be considered as having assisted in originating Ian- 



103 

guage ; or as having supplied materials for its for- 
mation. 

THE ARTICLE. 

This term is so unmeaning or absurd^ in its gram- 
matic connexion, that there is some difficulty in 
imagining how it should have been employed. It 
is not w^orth explanation. Grammarians affirm that 
there are two articles ; the one definite, the other 
indefinite. The is said to be definite : it properly 
ranges with This and That, called demonstrative 
pronouns ; in connexion with which it will be exa- 
mined : and therefore, for the present, it is dismissed 
without further notice. 

A is said to be the indefinite article, and to be- 
come An before a word beginning with a vowel : 
the fact, however, is, that An is contracted into A 
before words beginning with a consonant : and at no 
very remote period of our literature, it remained un- 
changeably An before all words. The reason is ob- 
vious : An, like Ein, Ger. ; Un, It., Fr., and Sp., is 
merely %Ane, now One; i. e. Un-us, Lat.; and EN, 
Gr. A book is the same as one book ; an ox is the 
same as one ox, &c. &c. How a numeral adjective 
can be indefinite is hard to conceive. 

No person at all acquainted with English litera- 
ture is likely to make any mistake in the application 
oi an or a; and therefore directions concerninc^ it 
are wholly unnecessary. For any purpose of neces- 
sity or utility, that grammatic designation article 



104 

can be well spared ; and even^ when a boy^ the au- 
thor could not help wondering how two such insig- 
nificant words as An and The should have been 
counted worthy to form one of the favoured nine 
parts of speech (which almost equal in dignity the 
Nine Muses) ; but the simple reason is, that learned 
grammarians had been accustomed to marvellous doc- 
trines concerning the article; especially the Greek 
article — next to which the English article ranks in 
miraculous powers. 

N. B. Some write, "A union," &c.; others, " An 
union." The sole reason of contracting an into a is 
euphony ; and for the same reason that we write, 
a youth, we ought to write or say a union, &c. But 
such petty matters are as little deserving of gram- 
matic notice as bears and monkies are of legislative 
interference. 

CONJUNCTION. 

This is another entity which merits very little 
consideration. Both conjunctive and disjunctive are 
intelligible terms ; and there are words that might 
be thus designated if it were necessary to apply any 
designation to them ; but conjunctive conjunction is an 
empty tautology; disjunctive conjunction is a manifest 
contradiction. And is a connective term, and so are 
other terms, not enumerated with it as conjunctions, 
entitled to the same appellation. Either contracted 
into Or, and Neither contracted into Nor, are dis- 
connective, and so are other words not usually enu- 



105 

merated as disjunctives ; but many words, commonly 
called conjunctions, have as little claim to that desig- 
nation as to any other which could be applied. 

PREPOSITION. 

This was, in its original application, sufficiently 
intelligible and significant ; for it was equivalent to 
prefix ; and simply indicated, that the words which 
it was employed to designate were frequently pre- 
fixed to other words. But as often happens, this 
was, in process of time, lost sight of; other words 
besides prefixes were classed under the same desig- 
nation, and then unmeaning doctrine was commu- 
nicated ; such as, " Prepositions serve to connect 
words with one another, and to show the relation 
between them. They are, for the most part, pu^ 
before nouns and pronouns'" ! ! ! 

ADVERB. 

This is truly, as Home Tooke terms it, the com- 
mon sink or receptacle for all words that gramma- 
rians knew not what to do with, or how to range 
under the other eight parts of speech. What is an 
adverb ? Lindley Murray shall answer : ^^ An Ad- 
verb is apart of speech joined to a verb, an adjective, 
and sometimes to another adverb, to express some 
quality or ciixumstance respecting it''' ! ! ! 

If any species of ignorance be more contemptible 
than another, it is that which is ostentatious of the 
appearance of learning, and which affects the forms 



106 

of science. Better^ surely, have no names than have 
such as mean nothing : better have no distinctions 
than have those which are absurd. 

All the preceding ^i;e parts of speech are more 
worthy of being discarded than explained : the four 
that follow have a better claim to attention. 

ADJECTIVE OR ATTRIBUTIVE. 

The last term has both meaning and utility : and 
when the grammarian says, " An Adjective is a 
word added to a substantive to express its quality : as, 
^ An industrious man ;' ^ A virtuous woman ;' ' A 
benevolent mind ;' " there is no violence offered to 
our understanding : we perceive that the attributive 
word answers to the description given of it ; it indi- 
cates some quality, either physical or metaphysical. 
Thus, in the expressions — ivhite paper — hlack ink — 
sharp knife, &c., physical qualities are indicated ; 
but — candid temper — acute mind — clear understand- 
ing, &c., may be regarded as indicating metaphysical 
qualities. 

A few remarks may be made concerning the Attri- 
butive. 

1. The simplicity of the English Attributive. It 
has no troublesome changes of termination for gen- 
der, number, and case, as in Greek and Latin, and in 
a less degree Italian and French, &c. Such changes 
may be necessary in Greek and Latin, &c.; but it 
does not follow that they are excellencies. 

2. The English Attributive admits of various 



107 

changes for the purpose of indicating diversity of 
signification : these will be noticed under Prefixes 
and Affixes, It may just be observed here, that the 
three degrees of comparison, affirmed of the attribu- 
tive (or adjective), are not unobjectionable : compa- 
rative and superlative are intelligible terms ; but no 
useful purpose seems ansv^ered by the term positive 
degree. Such an unmeaning distinction, however, 
is less to be regretted than the irregularities in the 
comparatives and superlatives of some adjectives 
most frequently in use. Mr. Tooke justly remarks, 
that words most frequently used are most corrupted ; 
and even in Murray's Grammar we find the follow- 
ing sensible remark : " In English, as in most lan- 
guages, there are some words of very common use 
(in which the caprice of custom is apt to get the 
better of analogy) that are irregular : as ^ good, bet- 
ter, best; bad, worse, worst; httle, less, least; much 
or many, more, most; near, nearer, nearest, or next; 
late, later, latest, or last ; old, older or elder, oldest 
or eldest.' " Children and foreigners beginning to 
speak our language, uniformly say, good, gooder^ 
goodest ; bad, bader, badest ; little, littler, littlest, 
&c., and as uniformly get laughed at as if they were 
guilty of some risible blunder ; which is as unrea- 
sonable as it would be to deride a lawyer for opening 
his mouth about law without first putting on his wig 
and gown ; or to suppose a clergyman could not 
preach a good sermon unless arrayed in canonicals : 
such pitiable slaves of mere custom are human 



108 

beings; so muc[i blind superstition and narrow bigotry 
have they in their nature ; so arrogantly contemptu- 
ous are they towards modes (however rational) thg.t 
differ from their own established forms ; so foolishly 
fond and vain are they of their very faults and failings, 
their follies and imperfections. 

Anomalies are faults in language : and shall we 
consecrate and preserve them as precious relics of 
classic or Gothic antiquity ; or idols, without which 
grammar would be destitute of a ritual ; and which 
must, therefore, be deified and worshiped for ever ? 
Let us then, at least, exercise some fellow-feeling 
and becoming candour towards our brethren, who 
have been guilty of first deifying and then worshiping 
cats and dogs and various monsters both of human 
and brutal kinds. 

The English language possesses many comparative 
excellencies (and Home Tooke could not, surely, 
mean any thing more, when he indulged his sprightly 
understanding in playful flourishes about the perfec- 
tions of language) ; but in that grand fault anomaly ^ 
it is radically corrupt. 

Such is the obvious importance or rather necessity 
of attributives to the significancy of language, that 
the author long considered them the first or pre- 
existent species of words, whence all the others de- 
rived their existence : and certain it is, (whatever 
Home Tooke may have said to the contrary,) that 
language could not advance many steps without em- 
ploying adjectives: and, perhaps, after all, a few 



/ 



109 

terms of this descriptton to indicate the more ob- 
vious and striking qualities of objects, constituted if 
not the whole, at least part, of the original invention 
of language ; for, as Mr. Home Tooke justly re- 
marks, it is the necessary condition of man to have 
few different ideas (which are quite distinct from the 
infinite variety of mental movement produced by ideas 
or inward images, i. e. pictures of external objects) ; 
and for indicating these ideas a very small number 
of words would be, in the first instance, sufficient ; 
at least in as far as necessity only for verbal inter- 
communication was concerned. It deserves also to 
be remarked, that if many adjectives evidently origi- 
nate in verbs and substantives, there are many verbs 
and substantives tliat as evidently originate in adjec- 
tives : and there are many instances in which it would 
be as difficult or impossible to trace the one, as it 
w^ould be to trace the other, to any pre-existent state 
or character. It must be confessed, however, that 
though not free from difficulty, yet according to the 
preponderance of evidence, adjectives must be con- 
sidered as originating in nouns or verbs : i. e. they 
are either nouns or verbs employed attributively. 
The adjectives derived from verbs are obviously the 
same as participles ; which will be considered pre- 
sently : and in the same manner that verbs become 
participles, are nouns formed into adjectives. Take a 
single instance that happens to occur : Mel, MELI, 
honey ; whence Melle-us, (of honey, like honey,) 
corrupted into Mellow, Yellow ; Mellitus, con- 



110 

tracted into MiTis ; whence Mitigat-us, corrupted 
into Meek, &c. &;c. Thus, many adjectives (and 
thence again nouns, verbs, &c.) are formed out of 
one substantive : but this subject will recur again 
under Affixes ; and, therefore, it is unnecessary to 
detain the reader longer with attributives in this 
place. 

OF PRONOUNS. 

" A Pronoun [we are told] is a word used in- 
stead of a noun, to avoid the too frequent repetition 
of the same word." The name implies as much 
(pRoybr nomen, noun) ; and grammarians have thus 
asserted, perhaps, ever since grammarians existed ; 
but it is one proof among a thousand other proofs 
how unwilling they have been to trouble their under- 
standings in the way of their profession ; for both 
the designation and the definition are destitute of 
foundation. Something like proof seems deducible 
from what is termed the third personal pronoun : as, 
" The man is happy ; he is benevolent ; he is use- 
ful." But can we be favoured with one proof or 
illustration drawn from any other pronoun ? Show 
a single successful experiment with I, f-Fe, Thou, 
You, &c. Instead of what nouns are these pronouns 
used to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same 
word ? Here is a short and easy method of termi- 
nating all controversy. 

The noun to which the pronoun belongs can be 
omitted and is often omitted ; just as sentences may 



Ill 

be rendered elliptic in many other respects and their 
meaning be preserved : but it does not follow, that 
the words denominated Pronouns stand instead of 
Nouns; any more than it can be truly said that 
those words which remain in any elliptic or abridged 
sentence stand instead of the words omitted. We 
can frequently use he^ she, it, they, alone ; i. e. with- 
out expressing the nouns to which they respectively 
belong: just as we can frequently use such words 
as, This^ That, These, Those, Former, Latter, First, 
Last, Above, Foresaid, &c., (which have all, in fact, 
as much claim to the title of Pronoun, as those words 
on which it has been conferred,) without expressing 
the nouns to which they direct attention ; but if we 
wish to be emphatic or definite, (as in legal writings 
for example,) we express the noun ; and do not 
trust it to be understood. Take the following illustra- 
tion : The grammarians have delivered many absurd 
opinions : they aforesaid (or the said — or— these) 
grammarians affirm, that such words as, he, she, it, 
&c., are Pronouns, i. e. that they are used instead 
of nouns ; but I, the author of this work, do testify 
of my own knowledge that the words referred to, 
are not truly Pronouns, but (if they must have a 
name) Connouns ; for they and nouns are mutually 
related, not as principal and substitute or president 
and vice-president, but as fellow-servants ; and if one 
of them be occasionally absent so as to occasion the 
work of both to be performed by the other ; yet the 
one thus enjoying leave of absence must instantly 



112 

re-appear whenever called for to secure greater defi- 
niteness. 

The fumbling phraseology of the grammarians, 
proves that they were groping in the dark ; yet some 
of their terms, such as, Definitive^ Demonstrative, 
&c., indicate that they were not far from the truth : 
only what have been termed personal pronouns, are 
as truly demonstrative as those words arc to which 
the term is applied. Their sole use is to demon- 
strate, i. e. to direct attention to some object or 
noun, which is always either expressed or under- 
stood ; and, for the same reason that the noun is not 
always expressed but often understood, so is the 
Cannoun also frequently omitted in elliptic modes of 
expression. If we say in Latin, Hie homo, it is 
equivalent to Ecce homo; in English, behold man ; 
yon man; that man; this man; the man, &c.: and if 
the man be actually in sight, (and those words called 
pronouns suppose the object in view either of the 
eye or of the mind ; or rather direct the view to an 
object,) Ecce homo or Hie homo, yon man, &c., can 
be dispensed with ; as the business of directing at- 
tention to him can^be accomplished by pointing with 
a finger or by some other visible sign. 

Thus, what are called personal pronouns, relative 
pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, definite article, 
and some other words not classed under any of these 
designations, all serve one and the same purpose, 
i. e. they point to some object or some noun ; and, 
therefore, they cannot stand in its stead. If it were 



113 

necessary to give such words a particular designa- 
tion, they might be designated Demonstrative Con- 
nouns^ or simply Demonstratives ; but such unneces- 
sary terms are more conducive to ignorance than to 
knowledge : and the words in question are properly 
verbs in what is called the imperative mood : the 
reader is, therefore, referred to the Dictionary, where 
each of them is treated of in its proper place. In 
the mean time they shall be disposed of as briefly as 
possible. 

THE DERIVATION OF WHAT ARE TERMED ENGLISH 
PRONOUNS. 

The most of these are obviously adopted from the 
Latin, into which they were as evidently adopted 
from the Greek : thus. Ego, was changed into Echy 
Ich, Ic, and at last remains with us /; and with our 
neighbours, Ich, Ger., lo. It., Je, Fr., Yo, Sp. : 
we have Me unchanged : Tu. is changed into Thou, 
Du, Ger. ; the Latin form remains without any 
change in It. Fr. Sp. : Nos, (and Sp.,) changed into 
Noi, It., Nous, Fr., whence We, and Ger. Wir : 
Us, is manifestly a contraction of Nous, by omitting 
the two first letters : Vos, (and Sp.,) changed into 
Voi, It., Vous, Fr., pronounced F^oo; whence, Vou 
and JTe, Euch, Ger. 

Those of the third person have caused more doubt 
and trouble ; but after much inquiry and reflection, 
the following is considered their derivation: 

Is, Ea, Id, corrupted into He, She, It. The 

I 



114 

Saxon is He, Heo, Hit ; or what is manifestly an- 
oth^ of the same, though called by the Saxon gram- 
marians the Article or Definitive, Se, Seo, Thset ; 
and the plural is Hi (Ii, Lat.) or Tha ; whence our 
They. 

Concerning the insertion of H and S, &c., see 
Etymologic Preliminaries. It could be shown, it is 
believed, that all the different forms of the German, 
Swedish, Danish, and Dutch pronouns, were, in like 
manner, corrupted from the Latin. 

Qui, (and Fr.,) Chi, It., changed into Who (also 
into Why, How, &c.) ; Quis, Quid, Which ; Quod, 
What. 

This and That, (with their plural These and Those,) 
contracted into The, called definite article ; Diese, 
Dass, Das, &c. Ger. ; Dat, Die, De, Te, &c. Dutch ; 
Det, Dette, &c., Swed., &c. ; seem like Desso, It., 
corrup. of Iste, Ista, Istud ; unless Ditto be a 
more probable etymon. 



THE WORDS COMMONLY CALLED PRONOUNS CON- 
SIDERED IN REFERENCE TO NUMBER, GENDER, 
AND CASE. 

NUMBER. 

There is, doubtless, some advantage in diversity 
of termination for the purpose of indicating singleness 
and plurality ; yet that this advantage is much less 
than grammarians suppose, is evident from the little 



115 

tise m2ide of numeral distinction in English Connouns, 
Without any loss of meaning, but with much gram- 
matic convenience, we have no numeral diversity in 
our relatives— Who, Which, What, That, and in 
what is called our Definite Article The. 

What numeral distinctions can appear more ne 
cessary than Thou and You ? Yet if Thou had not 
found protection among the Quakers, and refuge in 
prayer, it would have wholly perished ; and that 
royal pronoun We, threatens to supersede I ; for 
established usage is, already, almost as shy of it as 
of thou. 

GENDER. 

Any sign of Gender is as little necessary as of 
Number : hence, except in the third person singular, 
no such sign exists. Lindley Murray (whose gram- 
matic celebrity entitles him to some preference as an 
authority) indeed, tells us, " The persons speaking 
and spoken to, being at the same time the subjects 
of the discourse, are supposed to be present ; from 
which and other circumstances, their sex is com- 
monly known and needs not to be marked by a dis- 
tinction of gender in the pronouns : but the third 
person or thing spoken of being absent, and in many 
respects unknown, it is necessary that it should be 
marked hy a distinction of gender" Well then, what 
becomes of this necessity in the third person plural, 
which contains no sign of distinction in gender ? The 
grammatist could not but perceive his statement to 

i2 



116 

be too hazardous, unless accompanied by some saving 
clause ; and, therefore, in the legitimate manner of 
a sophist, he subjoins, " at least, when some parti- 
cular person or thing is spoken of', that ought to be 
more distinctly marked: accordingly, the pronoun 
singular of the third person has the three genders, he, 
she,if!!! 

The reader would be as little edified as gratified 
by comments on such doctrines. There is a useless 
but embarrassing distinction attempted, if not already 
effected, between Who and Which ; as if the former 
belonged exclusively to persons, and the latter to 
things and animals devoid of reason, such as turkeys 
and infants : if this additional fetter of senseless gram- 
mar be imposed upon free-born Englishmen, it will 
be their own fault ; for up to a very recent period, 
there is the sanction of the best usage for scornful 
disregard of such petty distinctions ; which serve no 
purpose except to render English composition diffi- 
cult. 

CASE. 

We have seen how little the distinctions of Num- 
ber and Gender are necessary : but the distinctions 
of Case (except what is called the Genitive) are worse 
than useless; for they cause much embarrassment: 
were it not for these and a few other grammatic 
nuisances, the English language would be the sim- 
plest, easiest, and most manageable ever constructed. 

The truth is, we have varieties of termination 



117 

called cases for no reason in the world save that they 
existed in Greek and Latin ; but though such varie- 
ties of termination might be necessary or useful in 
these languages^ it does not follow that they are 
either necessary or useful in English ; which accom- 
plishes by position the same purpose which the for- 
mer effected by case : hence, (fortunately,) we have 
no accusative C2i^e of nouns; which retain the same 
unchanged form whether nominatives or objectives. 
If every purpose of speech be accomplished without 
change of termination in nouns, what can render 
such change necessary or useful in pronouns ? If 
This, That, These, Those, Which, What, It, The, 
&c., be fully competent to the purpose for which 
they are employed without any change, what could 
possibly incapacitate the other words of the same 
class for performing their office, if they appeared 
only in a single form ? But it is useless to reason on 
the subject. We have Me, Thee^ Him, Whom, &c. ; 
merely because the monkish grammatists found Me, 
Te, Eum, Quem, &c., in the Latin language. Nor 
is it surprising that, in borrowing so much from it, 
they should have adopted more than was necessary ; 
but why should we deify and worship or consecrate 
and preserve their blunders? Let the grammatists 
cogitate an apophthegm of their great lexicographer : 
What reason did not dictate, reason can never ex- 
plain. Let them humbly content themselves with 
saying this or that unreasonably, part of grammar is. 



118 

because it was ; and because it was and is, therefore 
it shall be for ever. 

But having much affection for the English lan- 
guage; and contemplating the long duration and 
wide prevalence that seem to await it, we have some 
desire that it should descend to future times as free 
from imperfection as possible: and the abuses we 
complain of might be easily removed without the 
least danger or inconvenience. 

If what are termed the pronouns were brought to 
the simple state in which the nouns of the English 
language exist, they would appear thus : I, Ts ; 
Thou, Thou's; He, He's; She, She's; It, It's; 
We, We's; You, You's ; They, They's ; Who, 
Who's. 

This is all that is necessary in the way of personal 
and relative Connoun : and what a contrast of sim- 
plicity to the jumble of anomaly which at present 
enjoys the patronage of established usage ! Many, 
indeed, will deem it a very naked simplicity : and the 
disciples of custom, who always judge more by habit 
than by reflection, will, probably, find in it some 
mirthful amusement ; for which it is hoped they will 
be duly grateful. We are not sanguine in our ex- 
pectation that such simplicity will be either generally 
relished or adopted ; but if the objective case be given 
np, we care not about the rest ; for it is that which 
next to the verb, causes the chief diflBculty of English 
grammar. Such anomalies as My, Mine ; Thy> 



119 

Thine ; Your, Your's ; Her, Her s ; Their, Their's ; 
are soon mastered ; but the etiquette of placing I and 
Me ; Thou and Thee ; He and Him ; She and Her ; 
They and Them ; Who and Whom ; is a matter of 
constant recurrence ; and in which the most expert 
grammarians are apt to blunder. If, however, one 
form were adhered to, (let it be either I or Me ; He 
or Him ; They or Them; She or Her; which is 
wholly indifferent,) such blundering could not hap- 
pen : and that one of these forms might be dispensed 
with is evident ; for when ungrammatic persons say, 
/ saw he ; he saw /; you saw thei/ ; or, me saw 
him ; him saw me, &c. ; though the mode of expres- 
sion may seem ludicrous to grammatic people, there 
is nothing wrong as to meaning — that is conveyed as 
distinctly by the peasant's bad grammar as by the 
good grammar of Lindley Murray : and when any 
other standard of correctness than significancy is 
erected under the name of grammar, it is to be 
regarded as a mere ceremonial or fantastic etiquette 
imposed on the grammatic multitude ; who are not 
to enjoy the blessing of liberty in expressing their 
thoughts ; but are always to be in the bondage of a 
most arbitrary censorship. Though English gram- 
mar be very simple, what litterateur is there, how- 
ever accomplished, who is not frequently guilty of 
some grammatic offence ? Hence the gentlemen of 
the press usually mix up their controversies with 
grammatic recriminations : and it is very amusing to 
see William Cobbett turn round on his literary pur- 



\ 



120 

Buers, and, by the forde of his native prowess, aided 
by grammatic discipline, put to flight Leigh Hunt, 
Dr. Stoddart, and all his grammatic foes ; then sit 
in judgment on the Collective IVisdom of the Nation, 
and convict all the learning and talents thereof, as 
well as Mr. Canning and all his Majesty's ministers, 
of bad grammar. 

If we were in a grave mood we should perhaps 
deplore that, in addition to all the other causes of 
personal and factious hostility which exist in this 
imperfect world, there should be a senseless, mis- 
chief-making kind of grammar to set men together 
hy the ears ; which, moreover, causes much embar- 
rassment in writing and speaking our thoughts (and 
the business is sufficiently difficult of itself without 
any unnecessary impediment or incumbrance) ; whilst 
it creates and perpetuates a vain, petty, contemptu- 
ous, carping, kind of criticism. But almost any 
thing is better than stagnation ; and in consequence 
of the amusement just received from the subject, we 
are in some danger of feeling a wicked pleasure in 
reflecting that there is not much chance of gramma- 
tic reform : for though the measure be quite practi- 
cable, who, that have sufficient influence, will come 
forward and contribute their example ? This is all 
that is wanted : and however strange some parts of 
analogy might seem, when first presented, after a 
long absence, and after we had been all our lifetime 
used to anomalies ; in the course of a few weeks, our 
mouths, our eyes, our ears and i^maginations would 



i 



121 

be as much enamoured of them as of a French 
phrase, or fashion -just imported, and which is in 
vogue at the West-end of the Town : soon would 
the old discarded anomalies seem as ugly and vulgar 
as the degraded fashions and phrases which have 
taken refuge among the mohility. 

Let the influential personages of the literary world, 
particularly the corps diplomatique of reviewers (as 
powerful in the modern republic of letters as lawyers 
in the state), and the writers in all the periodicals, 
and all the gentlemen of the press, discard accusative 
cases of pronouns. In making an experiment upon 
established usage, they have an opportunity of trying 
their strength and of proving their power. If they 
will not hazard a little innovation for the sake of 
simplicity and utility, let us give arbitrary grammar 
the usual valediction — esto perpetua. The author 
will at least possess the satisfaction of having abated 
its pretensions. 

We object to all unnecessary intricacies in lan- 
guage ; but we have no objection to any useful con- 
trivance : hence what is called the genitive case has 
been exhibited in connexion with the connoiins; be- 
cause it is somewhat useful and strictly agreeable to 
analogy ; for nouns in general admit of such a change 
of termination to denote possession, connexion, or 
relation, and to avoid a longer mode of expression : 
as, " Mr. Tooke's work," for, the work of Mr.Tooke. 
" Locke's Essay," for the Essay of Locke. So, if 
either of these authors has been spoken of, and is 



V 



122 

therefore supposed to be in view, we might say, he's 
work ; he's Essay. His, Its, Whose, should Evidently, 
for the sake of analogy, be He's, It's, Who's : and 
for the same reason, You's is preferable to Your; 
They's to Their, &c. 

What, then, is this termination called possessive 
or genitive ? It is a contraction of is, also anciently 
es; for what is now put mans, was formerly manis, 
or manes; and every one is familiar with the use of 
what is called the apostrophic sign, i, e, the comma 
put to indicate the omission of some letter or letters. 
If, then, '^ be a contraction of is or e^, what is is? 
It is the sign of the genitive singular, third declen- 
sion of Latin nouns ; which was adopted by the 
Saxon writers to answer the same purpose in the 
native language which they were forming: and there 
can be no doubt that said is was originally a separate 
word answering in meaning or use to of with us : 
which of, as well as the termination is, is a contrac- 
tion or fragment of some compound word. Mans is 
the same in English as Hominis in Latin : Man's 
condition is the same in significancy as, the condi- 
tion of man ; or the human condition. In the last 
instance, human is an adjective formed upon Homo, 
anciently Humo, by adding an; which an serves the 
same purpose as the termination is, or our of; i. e. 
it denotes connexion or relation. Our word Man, as 
noticed in another place, is a contraction of Human, 
and elliptical for human being: hence the reason why 
the following expressions are all equivalent: Conditio 



123 

hominis^ humana conditio; Man's condition, the con- 
dition of man, the human condition. 

There is Uttle or nothing gained by contracting 
Manis or Manes ; Birdis or BirdeSy into Man's, 
Bird's, &c. The reason of its adoption was, evi- 
dently, to distinguish what is called the genitive or 
possessive from the plural termination; for they were 
both es or is. When, therefore, Birdis, for example, 
was contracted into Birds plural, the possessive was 
put Bird's ; and this distinction has sufficient utility 
(at least to the eye, for it is useless in reference to 
the ear) to warrant its retention. 

It has been observed that the plural was formerly 
the same as the possessive or genitive termination. 
The same is the case in the Latin: the terminations 
ce, i, is, are signs of the genitive singular and nomi- 
native plural : as Mus^, means both of a song and 
songs ; Domini, of a lord and lords ; Sermonis, 
of a speech and speeches ; only the plural, in the 
third declension, is generally es: as, Sermones, &c.; 
but, originally, there was no difference between it and 
the genitive singular. This fact might have enlight- 
ened the grammarians concerning the termination in 
question. See Noun and Affixes. 

We shall dismiss the Connouns, commonly called 
Pronouns, with a brief explication of their diversified 
forms as they now exist. I, as has been shown, is a 
corruption of Ego ; Me is the Latin accusative ; 
Thou is a corruption of Tu ; Thee of Te; fVe is a 



124 

corruption of Nos, from the French Nous; as also 
Us, by retaining the last instead of the first letters ; 
Vou and Ye of Fous, (Fr. pronounced Foo,) i. e. 
Vos : He, She^ It, are Is, Ea^ Id : They, we at first 
thought the Saxon Hi, i. e. Ii ; but we now consider 
it the same as Tha (Saxon), De (Dutch and Swed.), 
Die (Ger.), and as The, This, That, These, Those ; 
all which varied forms are, probably, like Desso (It.), 
resolvable into Iste, Ista, Istud, taken either as 
singular or plural : Him is a cor. of Eum ; and 
changed into Them for the plur. ; for in Saxon, Flim 
is for both numbers : Her is, in Saxon, Hire, and 
given as gen. and dat. of Heo, (now She,) i. e. Ea ; 
it was originally the possessive : hence, her is with 
us both genitive and accusative. 

The Saxon has Him for dat. and Hine for accus. ; 
the Ger. has Ihm and Ihn; the Swedish has Han 
nom. he, and Hanom, accus. him ; De they, and Dem 
them : we have some doubt whether the termination 
m be not the preposition Om, Am, &c., (for it is 
variously spelled,) affixed to the pronoun ; but we 
rather think it is the accusative singular of the Latin. 

Who, Which, What, are Qui, Quis, Quid, Quod; 
Whom is Quem; My is Meus ; Thy, Tuus; Mine 
and thine are cov, oi My en. Thy en, en being a usual 
adjective affix ; as golden from gold. Our is a cor. 
of Notre (Fr.), i. e. Noster; Your of Votre, i. e. 
Vester : whence, by analogy. Their (for Theyer), 
Her, &c. We have other unnecessary cases, or 



125 

duplicate adjective signs : as^ Her's^ Ours, Fours, 
Their' s; which are just as ignorantly put^ as, Our en, 
Youren, Hlsen, Theiren, kc, by the illiterate. 

Self, used for the purpose of emphasis, is Se-ille; 
as, Myself, Thyself, Yourselves, Ourselves : Hisself, 
Theirselves, have been superseded by very ludicrous 
grammatic blunders; for Himself, Themselves, are 
as incorrect as Theeself, Usselves, &c. 



THE NOUN OR SUBSTANTIVE. 

Here the name may be first considered. As usual 
the grammarians have preferred the least intelligible 
and appropriate term that could well be found ; and 
some very amusing reasons have been assigned for 
the propriety of substantive. The grammarians of 
the learned languages have, with some show of 
reason, employed the terms Noun Substantive and 
Noun Adjective; i. e. a name that can stand by 
itself without any assistance ; and a name that re- 
quires to be added to or rested upon another. There 
is, as usual, in these terms, a good deal of false 
theory, concerning which we cannot stop to inquire 
at present. But though the grammarians of the 
learned languages have noun substantive and noun 
adjective, why should their vernacular imitators, after 
treating noun and substantive as synonymous, prefer 
the latter to the former ? Probably the sole reason 
was, that the one seemed a more respectable looking 



126 

word than the other. But substantive^ besides being 
apt to suggest the notion o^ substance, is objectiona- 
ble for other reasons, as being connected with false 
theory. Noun, (i. e. Nomen, ONOMA,) name, is 
perhaps as intelligible and appropriate a term as can 
be found for the purpose. It is desirable that names 
or designations should at least possess the negative 
merit of not being false guides ; but in general we 
must proceed much further in our inquiries than 
they can conduct us. What, then, is that which 
we agree to call noun ? How shall we define it ? 
— Hoc opus! There is nothing so important, in a 
philosophic view, as correct definition; but, at the 
same time, there is nothing so difficult: a position 
which existed long before the author of this work ; 
but one which seems little considered — if we may- 
judge by the rash and confident manner in which 
intellectual crudities and empty verbosities are given 
for adequate and accurate .definitions. " A noun," 
says the grammatist, " is the name of any thing that 
exists, or of which we have any notion :" and, with- 
out stopping to look round for either notion or eocis- 
tence of explanation, he proceeds to other doctrines 
equally edifying to grammatic believers. 

This truly grammatic definition was one of the 
first things that gave the author, when yet a credu- 
lous youth, some notion of grammatic absurdity. If, 
he reasoned, a noun be the name of any thing which 
exists ; how can Nothing, or any one of those words 
which denote nan-existence, be a noun ? And if the 



127 

expression, any thing of which we have any notion^ 
mean more than any thing which exists, it means 
too much to be a correct definition; for all words 
that have any signification, are names of things 
(either physical or metaphysical) of which we have 
a notion : and if it be affirmed that thing denotes a 
real existent, in distinction from attribute, action, re- 
lation, &c., then, also, the definition is not only in- 
correct, but manifestly false ; for many words are 
called nouns which denote no such absolute entity : 
and the contrary supposition is not merely a phi- 
lologie error, but a cause of much metaphysical 
absurdity, which men give and receive as sound 
ratiocination. 

Well, perhaps exclaims the impatient reader, (and 
he cannot be more impatient of the subject than the 
author,) give us your own definition ! We have not 
yet promised one ; for though nothing, in a philo- 
sophic view, is more important than correct defini- 
tion, nothing is more difficult ; and nothing is more 
absurd and mischievous in reasoning, than incor- 
rectness of this kind ; for then our understandings 
are entrusted, not merely to blind, but to false or 
treacherous, guides. We must never forget that 
noun is one of those artificial entities which are as 
apt to cause perplexity as to be of any utility. We 
consider that which is in question to be necessary 
only as a fulcrum on which to rest our lever in de- 
molishing grammatic absurdity: and we define a 
noun to be a grammatic designation, given not only 



128 

to all those words which are the names of sensible 
objects, as, Man, Horse, Bird, Tree, Stone, Lake, 
River, City, &c.; but also to all those words which 
can be employed in a sentence as if they were names 
of such objects as. Hunger, Reason, Virtue, Vice, 
Nothing, Non-existence, &c. Any of the latter words 
can be employed exactly as the former, in connexion 
with other words, to form a sentence : as, Man is a 
rational animal ; Reason is very different from ima- 
gination ; Non-existence is preferable to eternal tor- 
ture. Thus any word which can be put as the agent 
or subject, the nomiiiative or object of a verb, is en- 
titled to the grammatic designation of noun : and we 
know not of any other definition which is admissible 
as correct. 

All words thus designated may be distinguished into 
Nouns physical and Nouns metaphysical : many of 
the latter are not names of entities, but of nonen- 
tities : such as. Fate, Luck, Chance, &c.: few of 
these, comparatively, denote absolute existents any 
way analogous to physical objects : they, for the 
most part, merely indicate qualities, motions, rela- 
tions, thoughts, feelings, &c. &c. Many even of 
those nouns which may be considered physical, are 
not properly names of things or absolute existents, 
but of motions : as. Current, Stream, Storm, Wind, 
Wave, Billow, Breath, Sound, &c. &c. 

This unsubstantial nature of what are called sub- 
stantives, which " give to airy nothings a local habi- 
tation and a name," is certainly a great convenience 



129 

in language ; i. e. to enable men to talk without 
meaning, and '^ say an infinite deal about nothing" : 
it is wonderfully subservient to effective rhetoric, and 
enchanting poesy, and deceitful sophistry ; but it is 
very unfavourable to sound reasoning and true phi- 
losophy: it must^ therefore, be set down as one of 
the radical imperfections of language : and in guard- 
ing against the deception of words, it is particularly 
necessary to examine their import. Many of them 
mean nothing: many are of uncertain import ; many 
being imbued with error and prejudice, serve only to 
impose on the understanding. 

Many Nouns admit of (i. e. we may choose to 
give to them) a threefold distinction ; as being Ge- 
neric, Specific, Individualic ; or. Universal, General, 
Particular : the first relate to Genus ; the second to 
Species ; the third to Individual : as, Man, Italian, 
Dante ; Man, Englishman, Milton : Horse, Racer, 
Eclipse ; Dog, Bull-dog, Billy : Bird, Parfot, Polly: 
Heavenly bodies. Planets, Sun, or Moon, or Venus, 
&c. Many Nouns admit only of a twofold distinc- 
tion : River ; the Danube or the Thames, &c. Rivu- 
let is merely a diminutive of River, and the one is as 
truly generic as the other : Lake ; Lake Onega or 
Maggiore, &c. : Pond is as much generic as Lake : 
Sea ; the Mediterranean or Baltic, &c. : Vice ; 
Drunkenness, Lying, &c: Virtue; Sobriety, Chas- 
tity, Honesty, &c. In all such instances, the one 
may be called generic, the other individualic. River 
is the generic ; Thames is the individualic term ; 

K 



130 

and thus of Virtue and Chastity, &c. ; Vice and 
Falsehood, &c. 

The above statement is intended to supersede the 
following hicubration of grammar-makers : " Sub- 
stantives/' say they, " are either Proper or Common. 
Proper Substantives are the names appropriated to 
individuals : as, George, London, Thames. Common 
names or substantives, stand for hinds containing 
many sorts, or for sorts containing many individuals 
under them; as animal, man, tree, &c."!! 
. The reader w^ill perceive that a certain description 
of Individualic Nouns may be termed arbitrary; for 
a particular man may be called, George, James, 
Thomas, &c. ; a particular horse may be called 
Eclipse, Jockey, &c.; a particular heavenly body 
may be called Venus, Mars, Jupiter, &c., according 
to the will or fancy of the person or persons imposing 
the name. This obvious fact is, no doubt, the cause 
of the assertions so often made concerning language, 
as being arbitrary and conventional. It will be found, 
however, upon due inquiry, that comparatively few 
of those nouns which are considered as merely pro- 
per names, (to use the common term,) are thus arbi- 
trary designations ; and though many of them have 
become, in the course of time, mere appellations, 
wholly devoid of significancy, (for there is now as 
little meaning in Robert, John, Smith, Taylor, &c,, 
as in Brobdignag — and the one would do as well as 
the other for a mere designation,) yet they were ori-^ 
ginally descriptive so far as they went ; i. ,e. of some 



131 

striking circumstance or obvious peculiarity. Tiie 
importance of etymology consists in ascertaining the 
descriptive import of words ; which is not indeed of 
any great utility as to physical nouns ; for they an- 
swer the purpose of designation, even if their sig- 
nificancy be not perceived. The names London, 
Paris, Thames, Rhone, Sun, Moon, like Dante, Mil- 
ton, &c., answer the purpose of designation complete- 
ly, however ignorant we may be of .their etymology: 
and it might be even argued (as it has been argued) 
with some show of reason, that the more of such is- 
norance which exists the better, as the etymologic 
meaning might only tend to deceive, by its erroneous 
representation ; as, for example, in the designation 
Pacific Ocean. The case is very different, however, 
as to metaphysical nouns (and all metaphysical 
words, i. e. words employed for metaphysical pur- 
poses); for every thing depends upon ascertaining 
their significancy, or their insignificancy ; i.e. whe- 
ther they mean any thing or nothing ; and whether 
their meaning present natural or chimerical ideas to 
the imagination, and true or false notions to the 
understanding. If metaphysical nouns be taken as 
if they were mere designations, like what are called 
proper names, without any regard to the reason of 
their imposition, the consequence must be error and 
deception ; and this (as already intimated) is one of 
the principal causes of verbal imposture and meta- 
physical absurdity, or false and deceitful philosophy : 
to which, the only effectual counteraction that can 

k2 



132 

be opposed, is sound etymology; though it will 
never, perhaps, accomplish all that Home Tooke 
predicted. 

It will be perceived that all nouns, which are in 
any respect descriptive, (unless, as before intimated, 
words imitating sounds be considered nouns,) must 
have been, previously, either attributives or verbs ; 
i. e. there must have been a reason for their imposi- 
tion before they were employed as nouns. 

It will be found also, on due inquiry, that Generic 
are, in general, prior to Specific, and Specific prior 
to Individualic terms. 



CASE, GENDER, AND NUMBER CONSIDERED, IN 
REFERENCE TO NOUNS. 

CASE. 

. The grammatists seem, in general, half ashamed 
of the poverty of our language in this particular; 
and they have endeavoured, with the best intentions 
in the world, to enrich it with imaginary cases : and 
they aver it to have, at the very least, three cases, viz. 
the nominative, possessive, and the objective. Lind- 
ley Murray, indeed, informs us, that he was long 
harassed with doubts before he arrived at true faith 
on this important article of his grammatic creed. 
" The author of this work," he tells us, " long 
doubted the propriety of assigning to English sub- 
stantives an objective case : but a renewed, critical 



133 

examination of the subject ; an examination to vvhicb 
lie was prompted by the extensive and increasing 
demand for the grammar, has produced, in his mind, 
a full persuasion, that the nouns of our language are 
entitled to this comprehensive objective case"* ! ! ! 

But after all the doubts, and full persuasions, an^ 
earnest desires, and strenuous endeavours of gram- 
marians, our language is simpler than even its Saxon 
and Gothic ancestors ; for English nouns have no 
change of termination, commonly called case ; save 
that which is called possessive alias genitive : as 
Man's for of man, Woman's for of woman, &c. ; and 
many English nouns do not admit even of this 
change : yet this defect of cases occasions no loss of 
significancy and no inconvenience. 

The affix '^ has been already explained ; and, 
therefore, we dismiss the case of English nouns as 
quite hopeless, by merely remarking, that according 
to present usage, the s is sometimes omitted out of 
compliment to the eyes and ears of the public : as, 
" On eagles' wings ;" " The drapers' company ;" 
" For goodness' sake ;" " For righteousness' sake :" 
Not eagles's wings ; drapers's company ; for righte- 
ousness's sake ; for goodness's sake. It may be in- 
timated, however, that the ears will be yet more 
conciliated by saying, in such cases, wings of eagles ; 
the company of drapers ; for the sake of righteous- 
ness ; for the sake of goodness. 



134 



GENDER. 



The reader must be informed that gender means 
hindy and that there are three kinds of nouns, viz., 
such as denote males, or he-animals ; such as denote 
females, or she-animals ; and such as denote neither 
the one nor the other, having no sexual distinction 
whatever : moreover, he must be informed, that in 
this instance the English language is richer than 
several of its neighbours ; for some of them have 
both masculine and femine gender, i. e. male and 
female kinds of nouns, but no neuter kind. It seems 
also, very necessary to inform him, that there are 
mctaphoric males and females ; figurative ladies and 
gentlemen. *^ Figuratively in the English tongue," 
we are told, ^^ we commonly give the masculine 
gender to nouns which are conspicuous for the attri- 
butes of imparting or communicating, and which 
are, by nature, strong and efficacious. Those again 
are made feminine, which are conspicuous for the 
attributes of containing or bringing forth ; or which 
are peculiarly beautiful or amiable. Upon these 
principles, the sun is said to be masculine ; and the 
moon, being the receptacle of the sun's light, to be 
feminine. The earth is, generally, feminine. A ship, 
a country, a city, &c., are likewise made feminine, 
being receivers or containers. Time is always mas- 
culine, on account of its mighty efficacy. Virtue is 
feminine from its beauty, [should it not be AerP] 



135 

and its being the object of love. Fortune and the 
church are generally put in the feminine gender" ! ! ! 
Behold the sublime of metaphoric gender, and 
sexual distinction, and grammatic sentimentality ! 
The writer of such a lovely piece of theory (we fancy 
that famous philosopher, James Harris, did it into 
English) must have finished it as triumphantly as if 
he had wooed and married all the Nine Muses at 
once. What chaste allusions to holy matrimony! 
What delicate touches on masculine efficacy and 
communicativeness; feminine receptiveness and fruit- 
fulness, charms, and graces ! What masculine heart 
can be so insensible to female attractions as not to 
fall in love with that perfect Venus, Virtue! Or, is 
it wonderful, that the sun and moon should be hus- 
band and wife, though living so far apart ! There 
is, indeed, something of the whimsical in metaphor- 
ic gender and matrimony; for with our old, rude 
ancestors, the Saxons, the moon was not the wife, 
but the husband of the sun ; and some etymologists 
of the Northern Origin, derive the proper name 
Moon from the common name Man! 

It must be matter of self-gratulation to the senti- 
mental French, that they are not driven to the ne- 
cessity of figurative genders ; as all their nouns are 
either masculine or feminine ; so that they can ap- 
pear to talk about ladies and gentlemen when speak- 
ing of battles and spectacles, plays and operas, meta- 
physical entities and nonentities. 

The business of gender is a very serious affair in 



136 

Greek, Latin, and even in Italian, French, &c. ; but 
nothing can be more simple in English ; for, except 
in a few instances, it is left, as it should be, to the 
meaning of words as indicative of the natures of 
objects, and not distinguished by different sets of 
terminations ; which are more troublesome than 
they are worth. The grammarians, indeed, assert, 
^^ Nouns, with variable terminations, contribute to 
conciseness and perspicuity of expression. We have 
only a sufficient number of them to make us feel 
our want; for when we say of a woman, she is a 
philosopher, an astronomer, a builder, a weaver, we 
perceive an impropriety in the termination which we 
cannot avoid ; but we can say, that she is a botanist, 
a student, a witness, a scholar, an orphan, a compa- 
nion, because these terminations have not annexed to 
them the notion of sex " 

If all these assertions were admitted, still the ad- 
vantage of variable terminations might be denied ; 
for it could be proved, that they produce a prepon- 
derance of inconvenience : but though they contri- 
bute to conciseness and perspicuity in such languages 
as Greek and Latin, in which the personal pronouns 
are seldom expressed ; they are not necessary to per- 
spicuity, and would contribute very little to concise- 
ness in English composition : and if the question be 
fairly tried by a sufficient number of instances, the 
English will be found equal to any language (how- 
ever incumbered with inflection) in conciseness and 
perspicuity. 



137 

What impropriety is there in saying of a female^ 
that she is an astronomer^ philosopher^ &c., any 
more than in saying, she is a botanist^ seholar^ &c. ? 
The truth is, that having, very unnecessarily, adopt- 
ed a number of foreign distinctions of gender, we are 
apt to fancy that they are very necessary, or would 
be extremely desirable to ail nouns ; just as a little 
indulgence is apt to produce a restless longing after 
useless or hurtful luxuries : so that, instead of saying, 
'^ We have only a sufficient number of variable ter- 
minations to make us feel our want" ; we ought 
rather to say, we have a sufficient number of them 
to produce false notions and fantastic desires ; and it 
would be much wiser to discard some we have than 
long for more. Such titles as Countess, Duchess, 
Empress, Princess, &c., may remain ; but what uti- 
lity is there in Actress, Arbitress, Benefactress, Con- 
ductress, Huntress, Patroness, Poetess, Protectress, 
Tutoress, Votaress? Even the eyes and ears (by 
which grammarians are wont to judge) are surely 
better pleased with the expressions. She is a clever 
actor, she is the arbiter, benefactor, conductor, pa- 
tron, poet, protector, &c., than she is a clever ac- 
tress, she is the arbitress, &c. 

As to perspicuity, such feminine terminations con- 
tribute nothing, because the connoun She, which ac- 
companies the noun, indicates the feminine gender as 
definitely as it is possible for any termination to in- 
dicate the same thing : and as to conciseness ; that, 
in most cases, is better effected by one termination 



138 

than by several. Thus, to say, Attend, ye actors, is 
more concise than. Attend, ye actors and actresses : 
Ye adulterers, is more concise than Ye adulterers 
and adulteresses, &c. 

We have much reason for congratulation concern- 
ing gender in reference to English nouns ; for they 
have fortunately escaped the troublesome incum- 
brance of variable termination ; and however the 
grammarians may lament their rude simplicity, there 
is not much danger that they will ever be changed 
into the likeness of Greek and Latin substantives. 

NUMBER. 

The only change of termination in English nouns, 
besides the affix 's to denote of, is that which is em- 
ployed to indicate the plural; or, that more than one 
is meant. The plural affix has been already explain- 
ed, in treating of Pronouns. There can be little doubt 
that the two terminations of singular and plural im- 
port have some utility; yet, that it is much less than 
we are apt to imagine, is abundantly evident from 
the number of nouns which we have with only one 
termination, without experiencing any inconvenience: 
as. Sheep, Deer, Swine, &c. In these cases, if it be 
intended to indicate the singular number, or that one 
is meant, the purpose is fully accomplished by pre- 
fixing a; which, as already shown, is a contraction 
of an, \, Q. X ane, i. e. one. In such a connexion, 
what is called (very absurdly) the indefinite article 
answers a useful purpose ; whereas, in ninety-nine 



139 

applications out of a hundred^ it is wholly useless ; 
only, having been always accustomed to this^ as to 
many other insignificant expletives, we should think 
composition strange and incomplete without it. In 
all such expressions as, a book, a house, a horse, a 
table, &c., a might very properly be termed the 
insignificant article ; which was probably the 
meaning intended by the phrase — indefinite article. 
The expression, a sheep is as definite as, two sheep, 
thf^ee sheep, several sheep, ma??z/ sheep, the sheep, 
these sheep, those sheep, &c. So, also, vv^hen the 
illiterate say, a shilling, two shilling ; a foot, two 
foot, &c.: and we have not the least doubt, that, if 
-ail nouns had thus possessed only one termination, 
the advantage would have been considerable, not 
only as to simplicity and facility, (for the distinctions 
of singular and plural frequently cause embarrass- 
ment,) but also significancy. 

A question long perplexed the author which seems 
now to admit of an easy answer. Whence originated 
the perpetual recurrence and useless application of 
what is called the indefinite article, not only in En- 
glish, but also in most, or in all of the modern lan- 
guages ? For if a, an, un, (It., Fr., and Sp.,) ei?i 
(Ger.), be, as they manifestly are, one, (Un-us, EN,) 
how, in the name of significancy, should they be 
connected with almost every singular noun ? If sin- 
gular mean one, why commit the tautology in almost 
every sentence of adding the adjective one P 

The sole reason of this fact is, we believe, that the 



140 

practice originated when the distinction of singular 
and plural did not exist ; or, at least, did not gene- 
rally prevail among nouns ; and when it was as ne- 
cessary to say a horse, or one horse, as a sheep, or 
one sheep : the habit of applying the numeral ad- 
jective \ ane^ (now one,) ein, un, (like many other 
habits,) remained after the reason on which it was 
founded had ceased. Many Latin nouns have no 
distinction of singular and plural, in the nominative 
case, (and their accusative plural is the same as the 
nominative,) and a very great proportion of Saxon 
nouns have, in spite of Saxon grammatists, mani- 
festly no distinction of number. Like the ji^uns 
sheep, deer, swine, &c., if not restricted, they sug- 
gest more than one of a sort or kind to the under- 
standing ; and therefore it was necessary to join to 
them ane or one, when one was intended to be indi- 
cated ; just as it was necessary to employ the nume- 
ral adjectives two, three, four, &c., when two, three, 
four, were to be denoted. 

If, however, there were one regular plural affix to 
English nouns, we might felicitate ourselves in the 
possession of it as an important addition to our 
grammatic treasure ; but, unfortunately, instead of 
being simple and uniform, it is such a jumble of 
anomaly as sets all principle and rule at defiance. 
The principal irregularities may be arranged under 
the following heads. 

L Some nouns have the obsolete plural affix en: 
as^ Oxen instead of Oxes; Men, Women, i. e. contr. 



141 

of Manen, Wornanen; which ought now to be Mans, 
IVomans: Children and Brethren have two obsolete 
affixes, viz. er and en ; each of which is (we believe) 
for es, adopted from the third declension of Latin 
nouns ; and which we still retain, but generally con- 
tract it into s. 

2. Nouns ending in O, have the irregularity of 
sometimes contracting the affix es, and sometimes 
not : as, Foho, Folios ; Nuncio, Nuncios ; Punctilio, 
Punctilios ; Seraglio, Seraglios : Cargo, Cargoes ; 
Echo, Echoes ; Hero, Heroes ; Negro, Negroes ; 
Manifesto, Manifestoes, &c. 

This is such a petty irregularity, and at the same 
time so easily remedied, that it ought not, surely, to 
remain : let the e be uniformly dropped, or uni- 
formly retained : the former seems the more advisable 
measure. 

3. Most nouns ending in f or fe, are rendered 
plural by changing y or yb into ves: as, loaf, loaves ; 
half, halves ; wife, wives : but why should not these 
be loafs, halfs, wifes, staffs ; like griefs, reliefs, re- 
proofs, ruffs, &c.? If grammatic authority serve only 
to establish anomaly, it is itself a nuisance ; and our 
understandings and our practice are more honoured 
in the breach than in the observance of its tyrannic 
laws. 

4. " Nouns which have y in the singular, with no 
other vowel in the same syllable, change it into ies 
in the plural : as, beauty, beauties ; fly, flies," &c. 



142 

But why should these not be beautys^ flys, dutys, 
&c. ; like key, keys ; delay, delays, &c. ? 

This is one of the evils of having more than one 
alphabetic sign for one sound ; and it is of recent in- 
troduction, like many other anomalies. 

5. Such irregularities as the following seem to 
have originated in the Saxon antipathy to polysylla- 
bles, so discernible in many words, which are re- 
duced to the favourite monosyllable : foot, feet ; 
goose, geese ; tooth, teeth ; louse, lice ; mouse, mice ; 
penny, pence ; die, dice. But why not follow ana- 
logy, as children and foreigners do in learning our 
language; and say, foots , gooses, tooths, louses, 
mouses, penny s, dies, &c.? But hovv^ strange and 
ridiculous such words sound ! exclaim all the duti- 
ful subjects of established usage. But is it not much 
more ridiculous to be the slaves of mere custom, 
however absurd ? Only accustom your eyes and ears 
and mouths for a single month, to the analogies of 
your own language, in those instances in which the 
strangest blunders have been consecrated into gram- 
matic proprieties, and you will be reconciled to them 
for ever. 

It is the custom at present, in adopting words 
from the learned languages, to preserve their learned 
plural termination. In this we act more strangely 
than our neighbours ; for how are mere English 
scholars to know the meaning and use of foreign 
terminations ? Why not make the plural of auto- 



143 

maton, automatons; criterion, critenons ; appendix, 
appendixes ; medium, mediums ; memorandum, me- 
morandums ; stratum, stratums ; vortex, vortexes, 
&c.? Surely good sense is better than learned pe- 
dantry ; and it is manifestly more pedantic than 
judicious to graft foreign pecuharities on a vernacu- 
lar language ; or, in naturalizing learned strangers, 
not to make them conform to the manners of the 
people. 



THE VERB. 



This is the most difficult of all the grammatic 
entities ; and, therefore, as might be expected, it is 
honoured with an uncommon share of mystical ver- 
bosity and metaphysical inanity. The name verb 
(Verbum) means word; which latter is merely a 
corruption of the former. We have only to suppose, 
then, that this very formidable part of speech was 
designated the ivord, by way of eminence, on ac- 
count of its vast importance. Nor is it worth while 
to quarrel with a name, when it does not indicate 
some egregious error or absurdity. If, then, a verb be 
a word, what is that word when considered as a part 
of speech? What is its grammatic character? Lind- 
ley Murray must reply: " A Verb is a word which 
signifies to Be, to Do, or to Suffer ; as, ' 1 am, I 
rule, I am ruled.' " Other grammatists have attemp- 
ted greater accuracy of definition ; but their at- 



144 

tempts liavc not been sufficiently successful to de- 
serve notice. 

It will jDrobably appear to tbe reader (as it always 
did to the author) very extraordinary, that the gram- 
matist should define the verb to be a word; and in- 
stantly exemplify his definition by giving, not one 
word, but two or more words : as, " I am, I rule, I 
am ruled." The blunder is easily explained. The 
definition was not made for the English, or, indeed, 
any modern language, but for the Greek and the 
Latin ; in which it can be strictly exemplified : as. 
Sum, I am ; Rego, I rule ; Regor, I am ruled : so, 
also, if we take what is called the infinitive : Esse, 
to be ; Regere, to rule ; Regi, to be ruled. In all 
these Latin instances the verb is one word ; but each 
of the English instances consists of, at least, two 
words. This is another proof of the absurdity of 
transferring grammatic definitions, distinctions, and 
rules, from Greek and Latin to the English language; 
which is as truly ridiculous as it would be to give 
the history of Greece or Rome, with a few slight 
changes of names and dates, as a correct history of 
England. But how insignificantly diminutive would 
a vernacular grammar appear without the lucubra- 
tions of old Lily, or of Crates Mellotes, done into 
Enghsh ! Hence that mass of absurdity which the 
grammatists have consecrated into English grammar; 
and by which they have endeavoured, very sincerely 
no doubt, to enlighten and edify the youth of the 
British dominions. Most of it was, from its first 



145 

existence, (perhaps in Egypt or Babylon,) dark and 
chaotic ; and all of it as blindly applied to the modern 
languages, especially to the English, (so dissimilar to 
Greek and Latin,) is as devoid of reasonableness and 
utility as the philosophy of Aristotle. To many per- 
sons such statements are redundant; and for the sake 
of brevity, as also of intelligibleness, to mere English 
scholars, we adhere as closely as possible to the En- 
glish language. 

The question then is. What is a verb? We deny 
that there is any such entity as a verb in the sense of 
the grammatists : i. e. one, single, separate, uncom- 
pounded word, which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer. 
But it may be replied. Have you not just admitted, 
that in Latin the definition holds, ^^ a verb is a word" ; 
for Sum, is one word; as also Rego, &c.? True; 
but each of these is properly a compound word : i. e. 
two or more words joined together ; just as if we 
were to write, lam^ Irule, lamruled; or, tohey 
toruhj toheruled. The movable affix in the Latin 
words, is as properly a distinct word as the prefix is 
in the instances Irule, torule. 

Though, then, the definition " A verb is a word 
which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer," does hold 
as to Latin and Greek ; it is not true, as to any lan- 
guage whatever, that one simple or uncompounded 
word can signify, to be, to do, or to suffer. The 
error of the grammarians originated in mistaking 
syntactic for verbal meaning; i. e. in supposing 



146 

that one word can convey a meaning which re- 
quires two or more words. This error, productive 
of other errors, and of numerous absurdities and 
unmeaning verbosities, originated in ignorance con- 
cerning the elHptic or abridged state of language, 
as found existing among every people ; for nothing 
was more calculated to deceive superficial theorists, 
who would naturally suppose that one word per- 
formed the office of several ; as if there could be 
existence without some existent concerning whom 
the affirmation is made; or action, apart from an 
agent. 

We have already considered the difficulty attend- 
ing the origin of language, and the origin of some 
words called verbs: and it would answer no useful 
purpose to detain the reader with another discussion 
of the same troublesome question. In all those 
words called verbs, which are manifestly nouns, 
there is no difficulty: as, ^^ to hand^ to face, to back" 
&c. ; ^^ I hand, we hand, they hand ;" " brave men 
back their friends and face their enemies." In such 
instances, all that is necessary is to join two nouns ; 
or a connoun and a noun, or to prefix the preposition 
to, to convey the notion of agency. 

Mr. Home Tooke (as already noticed) holds, that 
every verb is properly a noun ; and that it is some- 
thing more than a noun : he intimates, moreover, 
that he agrees with the Stoics in considering the in- 
finitive the proper verb, free from all incumbrance 



147 

of number and person. It is difficult to conjecture 
what he really intended ; but he seems to have con- 
sidered the affix of the Greek, Latin, Saxon, &c., (in 
what is called the infinitive mood,) as well as ^o, in 
the English, to be equivalent to do, or act ; as if the 
expression, to back a friend, to face an enemy, were, 
do back a friend, do face an enemy. If such were 
the case then, to, and the Latin affix are, &c., are 
to be considered as properly the verb ; and the pro- 
per inquiry would be, what is the nature of that 
which is thus connected with a noun to convert it 
into a verb ? After the fullest inquiry and reflection, 
we are convinced that the verbal affixes, to what is 
called the infinitive mood, in Latin, Greek, Saxon, 
&c., are the very same as the simple adjective affixes : 
are is the same word, whether it appear in Amare, 
to love, or Cellar e, of a cell : oi (ein, Gr.) is the 
same word, whether it appear in :}; Loven, to love, 
or Golden, of gold. In all such cases the affix merely 
serves to connect the word going before with the 
word coming after ; or to give notice that the word 
to which it is attached, is to be taken in connexion 
with some other word for the purpose of conveying 
a particular meaning. In short, the affix in such 
cases answers the same purpose as our preposition 
to; which also indicates that one word is to be taken 
in connexion with another; and which, like the 
forementioned affixes, is doubtless a mere particle 
or fragment of a compound word. 

l2 



148 

If, then, the common definition, A verb is a word 
which signifies to be, to do, and to suffer, be wrong ; 
what definition is to be received as correct ? But 
though we point out the falseness or absurdness of 
an old doctrine, it does not follow that we must 
forthwith supply its place with a new one. It is 
impossible to put any thing sound and solid in the 
place of baseless theories ; and the purpose of in- 
quiry is generally answered when they are made to 
vanish away like dreams when men awake. We 
have just seen that there is no such thing, in the 
English language, as a verb ; i. e. a word which sig- 
nifies to be, to do, or to suffer ; for, to express exis- 
tence, possession, relation, agency, &c., two or more 
words are necessary; and whenever one word seems 
competent to the business, (as in Latin, &c.,) it is 
not a simple, but a compound word, i. e. two or 
more words joined together. 

But though we discard the old definition ; we 
must, at least for a little, retain the term verb; if 
only as a fulcrum on which to rest our lever in 
demolishing established absurdity. 

" Verbs," we are told, '^ are of three kinds ; Ac- 
tive, Passive, and Neuter." The sole reason why 
such distinctions were ever applied to the English 
language, is, that they previously existed in con- 
nexion with Latin; but to suppose that the same 
distinctions will equally suit all languages, is as 
unreasonable as to attempt to make a coat to fit 



149 

the moon in all her changes. We say nothing at 
present of the original character of such distinc- 
tions ; for if they had been distinguished in their 
first application, by absolute wisdom, they might 
be perverted into utter folly by being transferred to 
the English language. The distinctions in ques- 
tion have been discarded by the more sensible gram- 
marians ; w^ho, instead of saying verbs are active, 
passive, or neuter, distinguish them into Transitive 
and Intransitive, The only conceivable utility in 
this distinction is, its subserviency to a grammatic 
rule; w^hich says, verbs active or verbs transitive go- 
vern the objective case : as, truth ennobles her; She 
comforts me, &c. Here ennobles is considered a verb 
transitive, because the action passes over to the ob- 
ject ; and if that be represented by a pronoun, it 
must be in what is called the objective or accusative 
case : but such instances as, I sit, he lives, they sleep, 
are denominated intransitive, because the effect is 
confined within the subject or nominative of the 
verb, and does not pass over to any object. 

This distinction, however, might be very well dis- 
pensed with ; for it would answer every purpose, 
even of arbitrary grammar, to say. When a pronoun 
is the object of a verb, or that in which the action of 
a verb terminates, it must be in the objective case : 
as, " I love herT " She loves we," &c.; not, " I 
love sher " She loves /." 

With all that avidity for multiplicity of distinction 



150 

which characterizes grammatists, there is a distinc- 
tion which has wholly escaped them ; though it 
seems of some use, and has long obtained the pa- 
tronage of Hebrew grammar: it may be denomi- 
nated the verb causative; and all we intend is a 
little elucidation. Lay is manifestly the causative of 
Lie; for it is equivalent to, cause or make to lie : 
thus, also. Sit and Set ; Rise, Raise, Rouse ; See, 
Show, &c. &c. In this manner a great number of 
words are employed causatively, to avoid a lengthy 
mode of expression : as, to run a hare^ for, to make 
a hare run ; Show, for, make to see, &c. In many 
instances the same word is diversified in spelling 
and pronunciation from the original form, when 
employed causatively : as. Show, a diversity of See; 
Raise, Rouse of Rise ; Set of Sit ; Lay of Lie, &c. : 
and thus, as will be found in the Dictionary, many 
words are resolvable into one word, which do not 
seem to have any connexion. Many verbs, however, 
are employed both causatively and uncausatively , or, 
as commonly expressed, both as active and neuter, 
without any diversity of spelling or pronunciation. 

" To verbs," we are told, '^ belong. Number, 
Person, Mood, and Tense." This also is affirmed 
concerning English words, for no reason whatever, ex- 
cept that the same grammatic position had previously 
existed in connexion with Greek and Latin. " Verbs," 
it is said, " have two numbers, the singular and the 
plural: as, I love. We love." Here, again, the ex- 



151 

ample is at variance with the definition ; for the dis^ 
tinction, as to singular and plural, exists not in the 
word love^ but in the cormouns I and IVe, In Latin, 
indeed, the definition can be exemplified : as, Amo, 
I love ; Amamus, We love. Here are two numbers, 
singular and plural ; because the terminations of the 
verb perform the office of the connouns in our lan- 
guage. 

" In each number," we are told, " there are three 
persons ; as. 

Singular. Plural, 

First Person, I love ; We love ; 

Second Person, Thou lovest ; Ye or You love ; 
Third Person, He loves. They love. 

" Thus tfie verb, in some parts of it, varies its 
endings, to express or agree with different persons of 
the same number. In the plural number of the verb 
there is no variation of ending to express the different 
persons ; and the verb, in the three pei-sons plural, is 
the same as in the first person singular. Yet this 
scanty provision of terminations is sufficient for all 
the purposes of discourse, and no ambiguity arises 
from it : the verb being always attended, either with 
the noun, expressing the subject acting or acted upon„ 
or with the pronoun representing it" ! ! 

It appears, then, that diversities of termination are 
not necessary to the English verb, as it is always at- 



152 

tended either with a noun or pronoun ; which noun 
or pronoun answers the purpose accomphshed by 
termination in Greek and Latin : and for the same 
reason that the verb is without any variation in 
connexion with I, We, You^ They ; it might also 
have been without any variation in connexion with 
Thou, He, She, It : as, I love ; Thou love ; He, 
She, or It love; We love, &c. It is evident that 
the termination, or affix est, after Thou, and eth 
changed into es, 5, after He, She, or It, answer no 
necessary or useful purpose ; but occasion much 
embarrassment. Disuse these useless diversities of 
termination, and you discard at once nearly all the 
rules of syntax. 

Whatever may have been the origin of the affixes 
est, eth, es — they are, evidently, nuisances in the 
English language, and therefore ought to be discon- 
tinued : but perhaps the curiosity of the reader, re- 
specting their adoption, may call for some explica- 
tion. We find, in our olden literature, eth connected 
with all the persons and numbers of pronouns (en 
was also generally employed as an affix, at one time, 
especially in the plural number of verbs) : as, I 
loveth, Thou loveth, He laveth, We loveth, Ye lovethy 
They loveth. From this, it is evident, that eth could 
not be either a personal or a numeral affix : i. e. 
whatever it might indicate, if it indicated any thing, 
it could not denote number or person. After more 
inquiry and reflection than the question is perhaps 



153 

worthy considered by itself, the conclusion in the 
mind of the author was^ that the affix eth was cor- 
rupted from the Latin affix at^ et, or it, (which has 
a corresponding affix in Greek,) as found in what is 
termed the frequentative verb, (as Agit-o from 
Ag-o,) as also in the supine, &c. ; or, that it is 
Thau (Goth.), Thue (Ger. Thun infin.), i. e. Do 
affixed instead of being put before the verb, as it is 
at present, w^hen employed. The last seems the 
more probable conjecture ; for when Do is employed 
the affix disappears ; which is some approach to evi- 
dence, that the one was considered equivalent to the 
other, if not the very same : as, I do love. Thou do 
love, or dost love; he do, or doth love: not thou 
dost lovest, he does loves. Whatever may have been 
the origin of est, eth, es, contraicted into s, they are 
manifestly useless and troublesome appendages which 
deserve no protection. 



MOODS. 

We are quite weary of grammatic inanities, and we 
will therefore dispatch them as quickly as possible. 
The doctrine of moods is self-convicted of absurdity : 
for the grammatists are obliged to make such a con- 
fession as the following : " Though this Mood (the 
Imperative) derives its name from its intimation of 
command, it is used on occasions of a very opposite 
nature, even in the humblest supplications of an in- 



154 

ferior being to one who is infinitely his superior : as. 
Give lis this day. our daily bread ; and forgive its 
our trespasses'!! — Like true Babel-builders, their 
tongues are divided concerning the exact number 
and proper definition of Moods. Yet, with all their 
love of complication, an obvious distinction escapes 
them ; for if what is called the Infinitive Mood de- 
serve any designation, it ought to be called the 
impersonal verb; or the impersonal state of the 
verb ; but the term impersonal was pre-engaged ; 
being applied to what is evidently the third per- 
son of some verbs — or verbs that are used only in 
the third person. 

In reference to Greek and Latin, the traditional 
doctrine of Moods may be tolerated ; because it 
serves at least the purpose of designating the various 
terminations of verbs, which must be committed to 
memory ; but in reference to the English language, 
it possesses not one redeeming quality. 



TENSE 

[Corruption of Tempus contracted into Time]. 

The grammatic tongues have been wonderfully 
divided about Tense ; which is not surprising when 
we consider how much the subject has baffled the 
most metaphysical intellects ; and that it extorted 
the following humble confession from the great St. 



155 

Augustine : Quid sit Tempus, si nemo quserat a mc, 
scio; si quis interroget, nescio. The worthy father, 
it appears, knew all about iempus, i. e. time^ ahas 
tense, when no one disturbed his contemplative ab- 
straction ; but the moment he was put into the wit- 
ness-box, he was confounded out of his knowledge ; 
and could not even say as much as a dial-plate — 
Tempus fugit ; but was obliged to utter the mortify- 
ing word nescio! Perhaps it would have been as 
well if the grammatists had imitated the humility 
and modesty of St. Augustine; and had given us 
Nescio under Tense, instead of those less intelligible 
words with which they have adorned their Nesci- 
entia. Mr. Harris has enumerated no fewer than 
twelve tenses ; but more moderate believers are con- 
tent with half the number ; not without an apology 
for insisting on so many. " Tense," they tell us, 
" being the distinction of time, might seem to admit 
only of the present, past, and future ; hut to mark it 
more accurately, it is made to consist of six varia- 
tions, viz. the Present, the Imperfect, the Per- 
fect, the Pluperfect, and the First and Second 
Future Tenses" ! ! ! Others, still more moderate, 
are content with half this number ; and insist only 
on three tenses ; the Past, the Present, and the 
Future ; others refuse to admit that there is a fu- 
ture or present tense ; and some deny the existence 
of tenses altogether. In all such cases of diverse 
judgment and doubtful distinction, simplicity is an 



156 

argument of considerable weight; so that, if there 
were no preponderating evidence, we would rather 
agree with those who hold that there are no tenses, 
than with those who assert that there are three, six, 
or twelve : but though the doctrine of tenses has, 
(like prediction in certain cases,) to some extent, re- 
alized itself; and we have, or seem to have, some 
notion of distinctions as to time, in connexion with 
verbs ; yet we think it can be as clearly proved as 
the nature of the case admits, that no such distinc- 
tion really belongs to them ; and, that where such a 
notion does exist, it is wholly accessory or associ- 
ated ; not primary — not intended to be indicated by 
any changes which are made upon the v^^ords called 
verbs, in any language. The inquiry, indeed, is 
attended with no substantial utility, except as it 
serves to remove false theory; for nothing is pre- 
ferable to absurd verbosities ; silence is better than 
loquacious impertinence. Before, however, we enter 
directly on the consideration of tense; let us first 
examine those words designated auxiliary or helping 
verbs ; for the right understanding of these will, in a 
great measure, supersede the necessity of a formal 
disquisition concerning tense. 



157 



AUXILIARY OR HELPING VERBS CONSIDERED : vk. 
DO, HAVE, SHALL, WILL, MAY, CAN, LET, MUST, 
BE. 

Here two affixes must be noticed as being really 
all the changes of termination that properly and 
usefully belong to English verbs ; viz. ed and ing. 
The last was, anciently, ante^ ant, and, Sac, (for 
there is great diversity of spelling in the olden lite- 
rature,) and was evidently borrowed from the Latin 
participle : ing seems merely a spelling of the same 
affix, accommodated to the nasal pronunciation 
that acquired possession of the English language 
after the Conquest. The use of ing is precisely 
the same as the participle-affix ans, ens, in Latin, 
and ON in Greek ; and has precisely the same 
use, and is, in fact, the same word as the adjec- 
tive affix an, en, &c. ; for all the difference between 
what is called a participle and what is called an ad- 
jective, is, that the one is formed on a verb and the 
other on a noun; and this difference is, in many cases, 
so very slight, that the same word is considered either 
adjective or participle. 

The corresponding, or rather, the same affix, in the 
other languages, is, ande (Swed.), ende (Gen), ant 
(Fr.), ante (It.). From this view, it plainly appears, 
that as the Latins borrowed the affix in question 
from the Greeks, their literary masters ; so the mo- 



158 

dern nations of Europe (concerning Sclavonic we 
give no opinion) borrowed it from the Latins, their 
literary masters. 

.. The affix ed^ at (Swed.), et (Ger.), ato (It.), is 
evidently the same as that which exists in what is 
misnamed (for it is active as well as passive) the 
Latin perfect, passive participle. Thus, Dubit-o, 
DuBiTAT-us, is, with us. Doubt, Doubted, &c. &c. 
If, then, the English affix be merely that of the 
Latin; what is this Latin affix? We can hardly 
expect absolute certainty in such a matter; but we 
believe it is what is called the third person singular 
of the perfect, with adjective terminations appended. 
Thus, Amat, he loves, Amavit, he has loved, Ama- 
vitus, a, um, contr. into Ajnat-us, a, um. The av is 
a contraction of Hab-eo : so that Amavit is equiva- 
lent to, love-have-he, she, or it ; Amaverunt is equi- 
valent to, love-Aaz;e-they ; or they-have-love. 

Whatever fatuous distinctions may be interposed 
respecting " the Perfect Tense not only referring to 
what is past, but also conveying an allusion to the 
present time" ; every one knows that there is no dis- 
tinction of meaning, or difference of application, be- 
tween what are called the Preterite Imperfect and 
the Preterite Perfect in Latin. The reason is plain : 
Amabat consists of the three same words as Amavit ; 
i. e. Am, love. Hob, have, and At^ signifying agent 
or subject, he, she, or it, as determined by the 
connexion. 



159 

For the same reason that the preterites in Latin 
often appear to indicate past time or perfected ac- 
tion ; so the Enghsh affix ed often appears to indi- 
cate the same ; but unfortunately for distinctions, 
even of the simplest kind, the definition propounded 
as if the English verb denoted action either termi- 
nated or not terminated, is not free from objections. 

We have no w^ish to discard the affix ed; but it is 
evidently much less necessary or useful than gram- 
matists vrould readily admit ; for many verbs are 
destitute of it, (such as shut, set, thrust, spread, &c.,) 
without any inconvenience or loss of significancy ; 
and v^hen ungrammatic people omit the affix, or 
employ what is called the Present instead of the Im- 
perfect, their meaning is perfectly intelligible. The 
truth is, we are very apt to fancy that useless things 
are necessary, merely because we have been used to 
them ; and we have not the smallest doubt that, if 
the affix in question had never been adopted, our 
language would have been as significant without, as 
it now is with, this termination. But if it were re- 
gularly affixed, there would be no objection to its 
existence : the great grammatic evils we have to 
complain of, are those irregularities which so much 
abound ; and which serve only to render the verbal 
apparatus difficult and unwieldy. 

If we discard all useless parts and irregularities, 
what are called the auxiUary verbs, will appear in 
the following manner : 



y^ 



160 

I do, Thou do, He, She, or It do. We do, You 
do. They do. I doed, Thou doed, He, &c., doed. 
We doed, You doed. They doed. 

To do, doing, doed. 

I have. Thou have. He, &c., have. We have. 
You have, They have. I haved. Thou haved. He, 
&c., haved. We haved, You haved, They haved. 

To have, having, haved. 

In consequence of haved being contracted into 
had^ vre have such extraordinary combinations as 
the following : I have had, I had had; and not only 
the former, but the latter of these expressions is set 
forth in proper grammatic order, as a necessary and 
regular tense ! 

Let and Must require no notice in this place. 
Can and May merely express power : / can go, is 
equivalent to, I am able to go — I have power, per- 
mission, liberty, &c., to go. I may resign, is equiva- 
lent to, I have power to resign : and in spite of 
fatuous doctrines concerning potentials, the shorter 
is merely an abridged form of the longer expression. 
May, when the affix ed is assumed, is corrupted into 
Might instead of Mayed, Could seems a corruption 
of Canned, 

Will (VoL-o) is, 

I will. Thou will. He, &c., will. We will. You 
will. They will. I willed (corrupted into Would), 
Thou willed, He, &c., willed. 
^ To will, willing, willed. 



161 

Shall, 

I shall. Thou shall. He, &c., shall; We shall, &c.: 
I shalled (corrupted into Should), &c. 

Shall seems most entitled to the designation aux-- 
iliary verb, for it does not appear to have much dis- 
tinct significancy of its ow^n ; but it is, we believe, 
merely a diversity of will; and considering the per- 
plexity caused by it, not only to Scotchmen and 
foreigners, but even to the English themselves, (who 
often blunder in applying shall and will,) its exist- 
ence is no grammatic cause of congratulation. What 
will the reader think, when told, that thirty or forty 
rules have been prescribed as a necessary directory to 
the true application and proper distinction of Shall 
and Will ? It would not be very easy, even in a 
long course of petty criticism, to render English as 
invincibly difficult as Greek: but if the collective 
wisdom of the grammatic world were deified with 
legislative omnipotence, the business would, in time, 
be most effectually accomplished. 

The preceding verbs have some irregularities ; but 
they are simplicity itself when compared with the 
verb Be ; in which there is more of wanton ano- 
maly than could well be found within the same 
compass, if we were to search all the languages of 
the world. The remark of Mr. Turner (who pos- 
sesses too much good sense to be a blind admirer) 
applies equally to the English substantive verb: 
^^ The Anglo-Saxon substantive verb is compounded 

M 



1^2 

of several verbs. We can trace no fewer than five 
in its different infections." Words much in use are 
most Hable to be corrupted and rendered irregular. 
Our ancestors adopted many irregularities, of what 
is called the substantive verb, from their literary 
neighbours ; but confusion is worse confounded by 
their unskilful agency. 

Am is plainly EIMI (Gr.), Sum (Lat.) ; Isy a 
corruption of ESTI, Est; Was is a corruption of 
Esse ; Were is Fuere, Furent (Fr.), Furono (It.) ; 
Art and Are seem corrupted from J Weorth, to be, 
be made. See Work in the Dictionary: thus far we 
have a jumble of anomaly; but in what remains we 
have an entirely different word, and one which might 
be very easily rendered a competent substantive verb, 
at once simple and regular. 

Be, X Beo and % Bio, i. e. Fio, i. e. BIOO. 

The illiterate, particularly the peasantry, for they 
always adhere more closely to analogy than their 
grammatic superiors, have this as the sole substan- 
tive verb in the following manner : 
To Be, Being, Beed. 

I Be, Thou Be, He, &c.. Be ; We Be, You Be, 
They Be : I Beed, Thou Beed, He, &c., Beed ; We 
Beed, You Beed, They Beed. 

Thus, by merely removing those nuisances, est, eth, 
es, or s; and by making the regular affix ed super- 
sede the obsolete affix en ; we have such simplicity 
and regularity, that even a child could not err in 



163 

employing this familiar, household word. Fortu- 
nately Be remains unchanged in what are called 
the future tense, and the subjunctive and potential 
moods : as, I shall be, thou shalt be, he shall be, &c. 
If I be, If thou be, &c. I may be, he may be, &c. 
* " But," exclaims the disciple of established usage, 
" how strange and ridiculous, thou be, he be, I beed, 
sound !" Well, but you have now the fondest admi- 
ration for many objects which you thought strange 
at first. Only take the useful analogies which we 
recommend upon trial for a few weeks ; and after 
your mouth, and eyes, and ears, get familiar with 
them, you will become attached to them all your 
life after. And as to those anomalies which we 
would superannuate, they will not perish ; they are 
embalmed in our classic literature ; and by passing 
into desuetude, they will acquire the additional value 
of being antique ; and will have as much rare ex- 
quisiteness as Nonce, when quoted from the olden 
authors. 

Having reviewed the grammatic auxiliaries, we 
may now approach the main body of verbs, which 
consists of very irregular forces : and for the conceit 
of the allusion we will make Train our fugleman. 
To Train, Training, Trained. 

I Train, Thou Train, He Train, We train, &g.: I 
trained, Thou trained. He trained, &c. 

This is such simple manoeuvring that a child 

might go through the whole exercise ; yet it is all 

M 2 



164 

that is either necessary or useful : and to change 
Train from an active to what is called a passive 
state j all that is necessary is. Be put before it, as 
accompanied w^ith the affix ed. Thus, 

I be loved, thou be loved, &c. 

I heed loved, &c. 

To be loved. Being loved ; Having heed loved. 

We have no doubt that if ed had never been 
adopted as a verbal affix, the business could have 
been vrell accomplished without it ; but having been 
adopted, it may remain ; only let irregularities be 
banished for ever. 

When the auxiliaries are united with the regular 
verbs, the junction is effected in the following man- 
ner : 

I do train, thou do train, he do train, &c.: I doed 
train, thou doed train, he doed train, &c. 

I have trained, &c. : I haved trained, &c. 

I will train, thou will train, he will train, &c. 

I shall train, &c. 

I shall have trained, thou shall have trained, he 
shall or will have trained. 

N. B. I shall have trained, like I had had, &c., is 
one of those clumsy phrases which no person, toler- 
ably master of composition, would employ: in fact, 
though exhibited in grammars, a person might read 
English for years and not meet with such expres- 
sions. 

In the simple manner as above may the other 



165 

auxiliaries be employed : as, I can train, &c., I may 
train, &c. 

Can it be necessary to work up these simple com- 
binations into such unmeaning entities as grammatic 
moods P There are, surely, less fantastic methods of 
teaching the young idea how to shoot! But if the 
Moods be abandoned, the Tenses yet remain. We 
had almost forgot the tenses; but we suppose, that 
by this time the reader is disposed to care very little 
about them. 

The truth is, as before intimated, if any notion 
as to time ever exist in connexion with any verb, 
it is wholly accessory or associated, and not signified 
by the verb itself. In general, what is called the 
present tense simply indicates action, being, relation, 
&c. : what are called the past tenses, generally indi- 
cate existence, action, relation, &c., as terminated; 
which, of course, is closely associated in the mind 
with the notion of the past. What is called future 
tense properly indicates volition. Thus if I say, I 
will publish the present work in the month of May : 
the sentence is equivalent to, I intend to publish in 
the month of May; or, I am resolved to publish in 
the month of May. Here the notion oi future is 
manifestly an associated, not the primary notion. 
It is true that the word is applied to many objects 
in which volition does not exist ; as in the following 
expressions : The moon will rise at eight to-night ; 
the sun will rise at six to-morrow morning. These 



166 

are instanceg of a very numerous class of expressions 
which are metaphoric or allusive, rather than strictly 
and literally proper ; though, from having been long 
used, they appear quite literal. 

But the subject of tense is not worth discussion ; 
and if it were not that we think it of some impor- 
tance to oppose all unmeaning definitions and useless 
distinctions, we would not have been at the trouble 
to call it in question. But if the grammatic doctrine 
of tenses were admitted, what is gained by it ? Does 
it impart any instruction ? Does it render Tyro 
better acquainted with language or more master of 
composition ? If it does not answer such a purpose, 
it is evidently worse than useless. 



IRREGULAR VERBS. 



These, like all anomalies, are exceedingly trouble- 
some, especially to learners. Most of them, evi- 
dently, originated in blundering carelessness ; or, in 
that aversion to polysyllables which operated so 
powerfully on our Saxon ancestors. Had grammar- 
makers endeavoured to remove such irregularities, 
they would have done some good; but instead of 
such useful service, their first labour was to conse- 
crate and confirm all the perversions which they 
found actually existing; and thus they prevented our 
language from righting itself, as it would have done. 



167 



to a considerable degree, if it had been left wholly to 
analogy, free from the fetters of arbitrary rules esta- 
blished on anomalous precedents ; for there is a 
constant effort on the part of children and foreigners, 
and all the ungrammatic, to restore uniformity ; 
which effort is so well backed by reason, that it 
would doubtless prevail but for the despotic autho- 
rity of written grammar. 

With the view of inducing influential writers and 
speakers to set the example of banishing irregularis 
ties from the verbs, we will present them in the fol- 
lowing distributions : 

First, Verbs that have both a regular and irregular 
form : 
Awake Awaked 

"jf Awoke -f Awaken 

•f Bent 

'\' Berefl 

f Built 

-f- Caught 

t Chid f Chidden 

■f- Clave 

fClad 

•f* Crew 

•jf Durst 

f Dealt 

f Dug 

f Dwelt 

•f* Froze -jf Frozen 



Bend 


Bended 


Bereave 


Bereavec 


Build 


Builded 


Catch 


Catched 


Chide 


Chided 


Cleave 


Cleaved 


Clothe 


Clothed 


Crow 


Crowed 


Dare 


Dared 


Deal 


Dealed 


Dig 


Digged 


Dwell 


Dwelled 


Freeze 


Freezed 



168 



Gild 


gilded 


t gilt 




Grave 


graved 


-J* graven 




Gird 


girded 


f girt 




Hew 


hewed 


-jf hewn 




Knit 


knitted 


4" knit 




Load 


loaded 


'jf laden 




Mow 


mowed 


•f- mown 




Saw 


sawed 


-|- sawn 




Shape 


shaped 


-)• shapen 




Shave 


shaved 


-|- shaven 




Shear 


sheared 


-[• shorn 




Shine 


shined 


-|* shone 




Show 


showed 


•J- shown 




Shrink 


shrinked 


^ shrunk 




Slay 


slayed 


^ slew 


•J- slain 


Sow 


sowed 




•f~ sown 


Spill 


spilled 


•f- spilt 




Strive 


strived 


jf strove 


•j- striven 


Strow 


strowed 


•f- strown 




f Strew 


■f' strewed 






Swell 


swelled 


•j- swollen 




Thrive 


thrived 


•f" throve 


-f- thriven 


Wax 


waxed 


•f- waxen 




Work 


worked 


•j- wrought 




Wring 


wringed 


■f- wrung 





There can be no unwillingness, even in the most 
dutiful disciples of custom, to discard all the above 
forms with the dagger prefixed ; for most of them 



169 



have an olden uncouthness, except to the lovers of 
antique obsoleteness and whilom forms of literature. 

Secondly, Verbs that might be restored to ana- 
logy, or rendered regular without offering much vio- 
lence to established usage : as. 
Beseech beseeched f besought 



Bleed 


bleeded 


tbled 




Blood 


blooded is still better 


Blow 


blowed 


f blew 


j* blown 


Choose 


choosed 


f chose 


f chosen 


Cleave 


cleaved 


t deft 


•j* clove f cloven 


to split. 






Cling 


dinged 


t clung 




Creep 


creeped 


t crept 




Draw 


drawed 


•f drew 


f drawn 


Drive 


drived 


f drove 


f driven 


Drink 


drinked 


t drank 


j* drunk 


Feel 


feeled 


t felt 




Flee 


fleed 


tfled 




Fly 


flyed 


t flew 


1 flown 


One of these duplicates had better be discarded. 


Fling 


flinged 


t flung 




Forsake 


forsaked 


•f forsook 


f forsaken 


Grow 


growed 


tgrew 


f grown 


Hang 


hanged 


fhung 




Hear 


beared 


f heard 




Keep 


keeped 


tkept 




Know 


knowed 


f knew 


•j" known 


Lay 


layed 


tlaid 





i7n 



Lie 


lied 


flay 


•j* lain 


Leave 


leaved 


tleft 




Lose 


losed 


t lost 




Pay 


payed 


t paid 




Ring 


ringed 


trang 


t I'ung 


Rise 


rised 


•f rose 


•f risen 


Say 


sayed 


t said 




See 


seed 


f saw 


j" seen 


Shake 


shaked 


f shook 


j" shaken 


Shoe 


shoed 


t shod 




Sing 


singed 


t sang 


t sung 


Sink 


sinked 


j* sunk 




Sleep 


sleeped 


t slept 




Slide 


slided 


tslid 


f slidden 


Sling 


slinged 


t slung 




Slink 


slinked 


t slunk 




Smite 


sniited 


f smote 


j* smitten 


Speak 


speaked 


•f spoke 


j- spoken 


Speed 


speeded 


t sped 




Spend 


spended 


•f spent 




Spin 


spinned 


t span 


t spun 


Spit 


spitted 


fspat 


f spitten 


Spring 


springed 


t sprang 


t sprung 


Steal 


stealed 


f stole 


f stolen 


Stick 


sticked 


•f stuck 




Sting 


stinged 


t stung 




Stink 


stinked 


j* stank 


f stunk 


Stride 


strided 


•f strode 


t strid f stridden 


Strike 


striked 


t struck 


f stricken 



171 

Sting stinged f stung 

Swear sweared j" sware "J* swore ^ sworn 

Swim swimmed f swam '\ swum 

Swing swinged "j* swung 

Teach teached f taught 

Tear teared "f tore "f torn 

Tell telled f told 

Think thinked j* thought 

Throw throwed f threw t thrown 

Weave weaved f wove j" woven 

Weep weeped f wept 

Win winned •]• won 

The most of these are already familiar to us^ as 
being constantly heard among the ungrammatic 
members of society, who are the great majority of 
the whole population ; and when our mouths and 
ears have somewhat practised on these analogies, 
they will not shi/ much at such strange regularities 
as the following : 

Abide abided f abode 

Be beed -j- been 

•]• Am -j- was 

Bear beared f bare j" bore f borne f born 

Begin beginned f began f begun 

Bid bidded f bade | bad -f bidden t bid 

Bind binded f bound 

Bite bited f bit t bitten 

Break breaked | broke f broken 



172 



Breed 


breeded 


t bred 




Bring 


bringed 


•f brought 




Buy 


buyed 


j- bought 




Come 


corned 


t came 




Do 


Doed 


tDid 


f Done 


Fall 


failed 


tfell 


t fallen 


Feed 


feeded 


tfed 




Fight 


fighted 


t fought 




Find 


finded 


•]• found 




Give 


gived 


tgave 


I given 


Go 


goed 


j- v^ent 


tgone 


Have 


haved 


t had 




Hide 


hided 


thid 


t hidden 


Hold 


holded 


theld 


I holden 


Lead 


leaded 


fled 




Make 


maked 


f made 




Meet 


meeted 


f met 




Rend 


rended 


•f rent 




Ride 


rided 


j" rode 


t rid 


Run 


runned 


f ran 


f run 


Seek 


seeked 


•|* sought 




Send 


sended 


t sent 




Shoot 


shooted 


t shot 




Sit 


sitted 


f sat 


f sitten 


Stand 


standed 


f stood 




Take 


taked 


ttook 


f taken 


Tread 


treaded 


t trod 


•j- trodden 


Wind 


w^inded 


f wound 




Write 


writed 


t wrote 


t written^ 



173 

The following have no change of termination ; 
yet, as already noticed, they answer every purpose 
of speech as well as those that have the affix ed: 
having a great affection for simplicity, we are rather 
partial to such unchanged verbs ; but as ed has been 
adopted, and has become the general rule, perhaps 
it ought to be uniformly affixed : thus, Beat, heated; 
Burst, bursted ; Cast, casted ; Cost, costed ; Cut 
cutted ; eat, eated, -f- eaten ; Hit, bitted ; Let, let- 
ted ; Put, putted ; Read, readed ; Rid, ridded ; Set, 
setted ; Shed, sheded ; Shred, Shreded ; Shut, 
shutted ; Split, splitted ; Spread, spreaded ; Sweat, 
sweated ; Thrust, thrusted. 

Observe, 

1. That most of the irregular verbs have descend- 
ed from Saxon times; when there was a different 
manner of forming what is called the imperfect be-r 
sides affixing ed, 

2. The termination en, which appears so often in 
what is called the perfect, passive participle, is a 
relic of a regular affix, now obsolete ; and for the 
same reason that it has been wholly discontinued in 
what is called the infinitive mood, (for we never say 
or write to loven, &c.,) it ought to be entirely dis- 
used, except as an immovable affix ; as, Jlaxen, 
golden, Jlatten, hlachen, &c. 

3. Many of the irregularities exhibited above, are 
merely contractions or corruptions of the verbs with 
the regular affix : as, Bereft contraction of Bereaved ; 
Clad of Clothed ; Dealt of Dealed ; Dwelt of Dwel- 



174 

led; Gilt of Gilded; Spilt of Spilled; Cleft of 
Cleaved ; Crept of Creeped ; Felt of Feeled ; Fled 
of Fleed ; Kept of Keeped ; Left of Leaved ; Shod 
of Shoed : Slept of Sleeped ; Wept of Weeped, &c. 

There is still a great tendency to such contractions 
as, smelt for smelted; learnt for learned, &c.; but 
the grammarians have very properly remonstrated 
against such instances ; and, for the same reason, the 
author remonstrates against all irregularities, whe- 
ther more or less modern. Instead of indulging 
foolish mirth or contemptuous ridicule, w^hen chil- 
dren, foreigners and illiterate natives follow the guid- 
ance of analogy and say, gy^owed, hnowed, Mowed, 
seed, &c. ; grammatic maitres ought to be ashamed 
of their own want of reflection — their appreciation 
of worthless distinctions — their blind reverence for 
anomalies, made up of blunders and corruptions — 
and their slavish submission to the tyranny of an 
arbitrary kind of grammar, which attempts to prove 
its legitimacy by giving reasons for what reason 
never dictated. 

We might now examine that entity Grammar, 
which Home Tooke says, is usually the first thing 
that is taught, but the last that is learned; and of 
which we are prepared to show there are two very 
different kinds ; the one rational, the other arbitrary ; 
having no authyrity hut custom; " the plague of wise 
men and the idol of fools" But we will first present 
the Prefixes and Affixes. 



175 



PREFIXES AND AFFIXES. 



Prefixes are those words which are joined on 
the left^ or at the beginning of other words : as, Un- 
known, iJevisit, &c.: Affixes or Postfixes are those 
words which are joined on the right or at the end of 
other words : as, HeedZe**, Mind/zi/, &c. It is evi- 
dently of some importance that these should be ex- 
plained ; especially such of them as have no separate 
existence in the English language. Such words are 
generally particles; i. e. small p^arts of compound 
words : and some of them are fragments of sen- 
tences. Post, after, (for example.) is evidently what 
is called p. p. of Pono, (hence Pone, behind,) and 
must have been originally connected with other 
words to express the meaning now indicated by it 
alone^ in some such manner as the following : Posi- 

TUM A TERGO, &C. 

It is only on this supposition that the actual mean^ 
ing of many words can be accounted for. 

PREFIX. 

This term is more definite than Preposition ; which 
last term was originally employed for the same pur- 
pose as we now employ the former ; and in this view 
there is both meaning and sense ; in any other view 
there is neither : hence, as already intimated, the 
senseless definition of preposition, as commonly givem 
by the grammatists. 



176 

The Prefixes may be presented in the following 
classes : 

1. Greek. 

AN, (both An and Un in Gothic,) In, and both 
In and Un with us : as, /^zvoluntary, C/wwilling; i. e. 
not voluntary, not willing : so that the prefix an, in, 
un, has precisely the meaning of Ne, Non, (i. e. Ne, 
Ne,) Not : it is a negative Prefix. 

N. B. The Greek grammarians have made the 
same mistake about the above prefix as the English 
grammarians, concerning what they call the indefi- 
nite article. Both say, that A becomes An before a 
word beginning with a vowel ; whereas. An becomes 
A before a word beginning with a consonant. Ob- 
serve again, that one of our duplicates of this prefix, 
i. e. Un, is derived directly from Greek, through our 
Gothic ancestors ; the other from the Latin. Hence 
we prefix Un to Saxon words (themselves corrup- 
tions of Greek and Latin) ; and In, the Latin cor- 
ruption of AN, to Latin words: as. Involuntary, 
Unwilling. We perceive something of impropriety, 
or uncouthness, i. e. a departure from established 
usage, if we interchange them : inwilling, unvolun- 
tary ; but the latter being more vernacular, or idio- 
matic, does better than the former. Of course, as a 
consistent advocate of simplicity and uniformity, the 
author would have one of these duplicates of the 
negative prefix discontinued ; and that which was 
adopted from the Latin, as being less idiomatic, 
should be turned off; but to this there is certainly a 



177 

great obstacle ; for many words compounded of /w, 
have been received into our language : as Infirm, 
Infallible, &c. 

In addition to all the other anomalies, there are 
many useless diversities of the same word, which 
have been adopted first directly from the Greek, then 
from Latin, Italian, French, &c. &c.: thus many 
forms of the same verb, noun, &c., have been im- 
ported from other languages ; and then these have 
been yet more diversified by the caprices of spelling 
and pronunciation. 

ANA or AN, which is the same in Ger., and with 
us changed into On, This is a word of frequent oc- 
currence ; but it is not much used as a prefix. 

AN is changed into EN, changed into In ; which 
we have both as a prefix and a preposition. Of 
this, also, we have a duplicate^ which we borrowed 
from the French ; as, Inquire, Enquire ; Indite, En- 
dite, &c. It would certainly be advisable to discard 
the French and adhere uniformly to the Latin form 
of spelling : as, Inchant, ^ Enchant ; Indict, -j- En- 
dict ; Ingrave, -j- Engrave, &c. 

There can hardly be any reasonable doubt that 
ANA, AN, EN, (with us On, In,) and AN, A, 
(In, with us Un and In negative,) are but one and 
the same word, or fragment of a word ; and that the 
difference of meaning is owing to ellipsis, i. e. differ- 
ence of composition. 

ANTI, in front of, directed to, opposed to: it has 
only the last meaning when a prefix witli us : as, 

N 



178 

Antlreformer, i. e. one who is opposed to reform ; 
Antiabolitionist, one who is opposed to the aboHtion 
of negro-slavery. Ante (i. e. AntiJ is equivalent to, 
in the front, ahead oj\ before : Antediluvian, i. e. 
before the Diluvium, corrupted into deluge ; Ante- 
meridian, i. e. before the sun be at the meridian — 
before noon. From Ante is Avante (It.), (i. c. 
a-ante) contracted into Van, 

APO, Ab, (contr. into A,) and Ger. % Aif, % Af, 
OiF, Of. Both Off and Of are frequently used ; but 
only the former is employed as an affix, and that 
but seldom. 

EK, EX, Ex, contracted into E ; cor. into j^ Uss, 
\ Ust, Aus (Ger.), Out. Out is not much used as 
a prefix : Ex is much employed as a prefix in Greek 
and Latin, and Aus in Ger. The general meaning 
is the same in all the different languages ; i. e. it is 
compounded of that of the prefix, and of that of the 
other word. Exlex and Outlaw both mean out of, 
or without law ; only the first is a person that is not 
subject to law ; the second is a person that has not 
the protection of law. 

On Ex is formed Extra, i. e. out of, beyond: 
Extraordinary, beyond ordinary ; Extraparochial, not 
comprehended within any parish. 

ENERTHE, NERTHE, (literally, in the earth,) 
cor. into Infra, (whence Inferus, Inferior, In- 
FERNUS, &c.,) and into Under, % Neath, (whence 
Beneath,) Nether. 

HEM.I, Semi, i. e. half: as Hemisphere, i. e. a 



179 

half sphere ; Semicircle, a half circle, or the half of 
a circle. HEMI is a contr. of HEMISA, a contr. 
of HE MESSE ; i. e. the feminine article, and 
MESSE, Media, medium, middle, 

PARA, PERI, PER, &c., Per. This, like so 
many other particles, or verbal fragments much in 
use, is exceedingly vague. As a Greek prefix it 
occurs in but few words adopted into the English 
language ; and therefore its meaning will be ex- 
plained with these in the Dictionary: as a Latin 
prefix. Per means through, completely, much : as. 
Perfect, completely done, finished, complete; Per- 
form, to form completely, to finish, &c. When not 
employed as a prefix. Per is equivalent to by : as, 
per centum — by the hundred. 

PRO, Pro, Pr^, cor. into For, Fore, Vrie, 
Pre, and Fore, as prefixes, are exactly equivalent : 
as. Preordain, Foreordain ; Predict, Foretell, &c. 
Pro is generally equivalent to Forward, (i. e. Fore- 
ward,) or Forth : as. Produce, i. e. to lead forward, 
or bring forth ; Propel, drive forward, &c. Far is 
prefixed to very few words, and is equivalent to Pro 
m some of its connexions and applications. 

HUPER, or HYPER, Super, Supra, cor. into 
Vp, Upper, Uber and Oben (Ger.), % Aher, Ober 
(Heb.), Over, ^ Bove (Boven, Dutch), i. e. Be over, 
whence Above. It is not meant that Ober (Heb.), 
X Aber, &c., are derived from HUPER, as Super, 
&c.: but they are all manifestly the same ward with 
the same meaning. Hypercritical, i. e. Over critical; 

' n2 



180 

Supernatural, above natural, or above the course of 
nature; Supervisor, overseer, &c. Super is contr. 
into Sur by the French : Surcharge, Surfeit, Survey, 
&€.; i. e. overcharge, overdo, overlook, or view all 
over, &c. 

N. B. Aber, in the names of towns, means aver^ 
like Sur, Upon, &c.: as, Aberdeen, i. e. Over or 
Upon the Don ; Abergavenny, i. e. Over the Gaven- 
ny; Aberistwyth, i. e. Over the Istwyth, &c. 

The etymologists, who often blunder respecting 
the most obvious derivations, must needs hQ,ve Aber 
to mean mouth, for no reason in the world save the 
accidental circumstance of some of the towns, in 
whose names it is found, being seated near the 
mouth of rivers. 

Inver, i. e. Infra, is just the opposite of ^6er : 
as, Inverness, i. e. Under the Ness ; Inverury, i. e. 
Under the Ury, &c. Thus we have Newcastle- 
Under-Line as well as Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, &c. 

HUPO or HYPO, changed into Sub, whence 
SuBTER ; all which are prefixes : we have few Greek 
words with the prefix HYPO ; but we have many 
Latin words with Sub, &c. : as. Subscribe, i. e. 
Underwrite, or write under; Sub-tenant, i. e. Under- 
tenant, &c. 

DIA, Dis, De, through, from, out, apart. The 
primary use of both Dis and De may be termed 
separative: as. Diffuse, to pour out, or asunder; 
Depart, to part from, leave, go off: in many words 
they rather add to the force than to the meaning of 



181 

words: Demonstrate^ to show forth (Monstro^ to 
show) ; Despoil, to spoil, &c. In many words they 
are simply negative: Discredit, not to credit, &c. 
In some words De has the signification of Down 
or Downwards: as. Descend, go down; Degrade, 
make to descend to a lower grade ^ step, or station ; 
Despise, literally, to look down upon. 

Dis, De, like Ex, E, Ab, Se, are directly opposite 
to Ad, Con, Ob, In. The last may be termed con- 
nectives: the first disconnectives. As negatives, Dis, 
De, Un, are exactly equivalent : Discover, Uncover 
(the first is now used only metaphorically); De- 
throne, Unthrone; Demoralize, to render immoral^ 
&c. 

Malus, Mai, ill, bad, contracted into Mes^ Me 
(Fr.), Mis : Malecontent, Mal-content (Fr.) ; Mal- 
formation ; Misuse, Misadventure, &c. Mesuser, 
Mesaventure (Fr.), i. e. not well content, bad for- 
mation, to use ill, a bad adventure : thus. Miscal- 
culate, Misadvise, Mistake, &c. 

The following are Latin prefixes or prepositions: 

Ad, cor. into % Adu, % Du, now To, and into At ; 
and contracted into A in It., Fr., Sp., and Eng.: as. 
Abed, Asleep, Ashore, Aground, &c. : i. e. in bed, 
in sleep, on shore, on ground, &c. In all such ex- 
pressions as. To go a begging, a fishing, a hunting^ 
&c., a is Ad contracted ; and the meaning is, To 
go to begging, to fishing, &c. Ad and its contr. A, 
and its diversified forms, At, To, have precisely the 
same meaning. 



182 

The last consonant of the prefix is usually changed 
into the first consonant of the word with which it is 
joined ; as^ Adnuncio, Annuncio, to announce ; 
AssuLTo^ to assault, i. e, leap upon, to attack. 

The illiterate classes of the English, particularly 
cockneys, are guilty of using a (i. e. ad) most un- 
reasonably : as, I was a saying, he was a hearing, he 
is a going. 

CiRCUM, in a circle , round, about. 

Circumnavigate, to navigate round, or sail round ; 
Circumambulate, to amble, or walk round, &c. 

Inter, (i. e. IN and ter an adjective affix,) within, 
between, among ; Interline, to write between lines ; 
Interlope, to leap between, or among ; Interregnum, 
Interreign, the tini!^ between the reign of one king 
and that of another. 

Intro, in or into: Introduce, (Duco, lead,) to 
lead, or bring in, &c. 

Intra, within. 

Internus, Internajlis, internal 

Interior. 

Introeo, corrupted (through the Fr.) into Enter, 
whence Entry, Entrance, &c. See Eo in the Dic- 
tionary. 

Con, with, to: Concurro, concur, run together, 
unite ; Confront, to place front to front ; Confluent, 
flowing together ; Commingle, to mingle together. 

Contra, corrupted into Counter ; facing, opposite, 
against: Contradict (Dico, speak), to speak against, 
or deny ; Counteract, to act in opposition to ; Coun- 



183 

termand, to order the contrary of what was ordered 
before, &c. 

CoNTRARius, Contrary; ContrarietaS;, Contra- 
riety, 

Ob (EPI), upon, to, before, for, &c.: Obligo, 
Oblige (LiGO, bind), bind to; Occur (Curro), run 
to, meet, happen. 

Trans, contracted into Tra (It.), and cor. into 
Throitgh, (and Tres, Fr.) Thorough (Durch, Ger.): 
it answers to through, over, beyond: Transgress, 
Trespass, to pass over ; Transatlantic, beyond the 
Atlantic ; Translucid, shining through, clear. Tres 
is employed by the French as we employ very, 
exceedingly. 

Ultra, (cor. into Outre, Fr.), beyond, above, 
high, &c. ; Ultra-royalist, one who has very high 
notions of royalty, a high tory. 
Ulterior, further. 

Sine, without, (i. e. Sit ne, be not,) contr. into 
Se, is strictly a separative or disconnective ; Segre- 
gate, to separate from the flock ; Seligo, Selectum, 
Select, to choose out of. This prefix has much the 
same use as De, Dis, Di, and Un, In. 

Re, again, back : Re-enact, enact again ; Restate, 
state again ; Rebound, bound back. 

In Dutch Re is corrupted into Her; as, Herplant, 
replant ; Hermaak, remake. 

It is unnecessary to explain those words some- 
times employed as prefixes, which have a separate 
existence in the language: such as. With, Down, 



184 

&c. There is but one Anglo prefix that appears to 
require notice, viz. Be: as in Befriend, Bespeak, 
Belie, &c. 

This prefix is possibly the verb Be; but we rather 
think it is the preposition By (Bey, Gfer), i. e. Ahu, 
Goth., i. e. Ab. 

In some cases this prefix gives a particular mean- 
ing to a verb : as, Belie, Bespew, &c. Some nouns 
are formed into verbs, in connexion with it, which 
do not exist as verbs in a simple or separate state — 
as, Befriend, Behead, &c. ; but frequently it imparts 
no meaning: thus. Becalm, to calm; Becloud, to 
cloud, &c. 

Arch, i. e. ARCH-OS, chief, is employed as a 
prefix: Arch-priest, a chief-priest; Archbishop, a 
chief bishop ; Arch-rogue, a chief or great rogue, 
&c. ; Arch-heretic, a chief or remarkable heretic. 



AFFIXES OR POSTFIXES, i. e. WORDS ADDED TO 
THE END OF OTHER WORDS. 

AFFIXES OF ADJECTIVES. 

We will arrange these under the following heads : 
1. Simple Adjectives or Connectives: an, en, in, 
on, &c.; ad, ed, id, &c.; ate, ite, &c.; al, el, ile, 
&c. ; ar, er, ary, &c. ; ic, ick, ig, contr. into y and 
cor. into ish (ischy Ger. ; escOy It. ; esque, Fr.) : Hu- 
man from Humo, now Homo ; Golde^z, Frig^W, Par- 



185 

tial, Singul^'r, Custom^n/^ Domestic, :{: Frostig, now 
Frosty, Spanf^^, Waspish, Victmesque. 

All these affixes which the modern have in com- 
mon with the learned languages, might, as already 
intimated, be called possessive or genitive : thus. 
Conditio hominis, Humana conditio, Man's condi- 
tion, the condition of man, the human condition, are 
all equivalent expressions. 

Observe, such affixes are frequently redundant, 
i. e. two or more are put where one is sufficient : as 
Philosophic^/ ; EtymologzcaZ ; Eastern ; Westerw, 
&c. &c., instead of philosophic, &c. 

Concerning the etymology of these affixes, it is, 
perhaps, idle to offer a conjecture, as they are mere 
fragments of words : id, &c., seems a contraction of 
EIDOS (used adjectively), ic or ik, &c., of EIKOS, 
Like (which word is also employed as an adjective 
affix) ; and, perhaps, all the rest have a similar de- 
rivation ; but we cannot be confident respecting 
them. 

2. Separative or negative affixes of adjectives. 
We have one of this description, which answers 
exactly to the negative prefix in or ww, viz. less, i. e. 
X Los, i. e. lost, deprived of, without : as. Witless, 
Friendless, Careless ; without wit, without a friend, 
without care : the Ger. is los : as, Gottlos, Godless ; 
Grundlos, Groundless. Our present form of this 
affix seems to have originated (like many other mo- 
dern spellings) in etymologic error ; by supposing it 
to be the adjective Less, or comparative of little. 



186 

See Loose, Lose, &c., under Laxo and LUO, 
LUSO, in the Dictionary. 

3. Diminutive affixes of adjectives. We have one 
of this description, viz. ish : as, SweetzVi, a little 
sweet ; Saltish, a little salt : ish is a cor. of the 
Greek diminutive ISK ; which is in Italian, uccio 
and iizzoy and in Span. ico. 

4. Augmentive adjective affixes : these are % Sam, 
X Sum, Some, ful, ous, 

% Sam, :}: Sum, now Some, is the Latin superla- 
tive affix, ssim-\xs or 5wm-us, i. e. Summ-us, highest, 
greatest, most, much, very : Troubl&some, lightjowie, 
causing much trouble, giving much light. In Ger. 
this affix is Sam ; our present spelling originated in 
the etymologic error of supposing it to be some; 
which still exists as a separate word, but which has 
an opposite meaning. 

Ful, i. e. Full, requires no explanation here. Ous, 
is the French form of Os, (like our for or,) a Latin 
augmentive affix : Calamitos-us, Calamitous, hdi^'mg 
or causing much calamity. 

These three affixes are equivalent though not 
always interchangeable ; for it is not customary to 
put the one for the other at choice : we say trouble- 
some ; but trouhleful, troublous, seem awkward: the 
old writers, indeed, took more liberty in this way. 

The Latin affix os, is manifestly the same as ox^ 
ax, and seems to be a fragment of Maxim-us, great- 
est, most, much, very. 

There are some adjective affixes that cannot be 



it- 



187 

ranged under any of the above designations : as ahhy 
(i. e. Habilis^ Habile — see Habeo,) which might 
be termed potential passive : Teacha^/e^ Moveable, 
Mutable, Mutabile, &c. ; i. e. that may be taught, 
that may be moved. But there are instances in 
v^hich it is employed as active rather than passive : 
Forcible, Conversable, &c., i. e. Forceful, that can 
converse. This use of the affix is not frequent; and, 
perhaps, it ought to be discontinued. 

It is almost unnecessary to mention that our adjec- 
tive able is the same w^ord ; only it is hardly ever 
applied as passive : we say, able to see, but not 
able to be seen. 

Alike, Like, often contr. into ly, (Lich, Ger. and 
Gleich, i. e. Ge-leich, Lyk, Dut.,) i. e. ALIGKI-os, 
perhaps a cor. of EIKEL-os, iEeiUAL-is, equal : 
Gentlemanlike or Gentlemanly, Friendlike, or 
Friendly, &c., i. e., like a gentleman, as a friend : 
this is generally what is termed an adverbial termina- 
tion : as, boldly, in a bold manner, proudly, in a 
proud manner, &c. 

Home Tooke derives Like from the compound 
Gelyk or Gleich ; but he does not attempt to inform 
us what Gleich is derived from. 

We may notice the affixes ward and wise here : 
as in homeward, backward, sidewise, longwise, &c., 
in the direction of home, in the direction of the back, 
in the direction of the side, in the long direction or 
manner : ward is a corrup. of Versus. See Ward 



188 

under Vert-o ; wise is for ^ way Is , \ ways, genitive 
of Way, i. e. Via. 

AFFIXES OF NOUNS. 

These are, head also hood, dom, ship, ness, th, ty, 
tude, ary, ry, ment, men, mony, age, ation, etion, 
ition, otion, ution and asion, esion, &c., ant, ent, or, 
er, ist, ism, ling, lin. 

As the terminations of words are exceedingly lia- 
ble to be corrupted, it is hardly possible to arrive at 
a satisfactory opinion concerning the derivation of 
many affixes : those of the nouns are particularly 
difficult. 

The affix head, hood, (heid, Dut., heit, Ger.,) 
would seem at first sight the noun head: as if 
\ Manhead or Manhood were head man or great 
man ; but there is so little obvious connexion be- 
tween the meaning suggested by this word, whether 
taken literally or figuratively, and the use of hood as 
an affix in many applications, that we have conjec- 
tured the last to be either a corruption of had, or, 
what seems more probable, of tudo. Another form 
of the same affix in German is od, and in Welsh 
there is edd and dod. But whatever be the deriva- 
tion of hood, it means exactly the same as tudo, ty, 
&c., i. e., state, condition : Widowhood is being a 
widow ; falsehood is being false, or that which is 
false. 

I>om (thum, Ger. ) seems evidently a contr. of 



189 

domain or dominion : Kingdom, Popedom, Prince- 
dom, Dukedom, that which is subject to a king, 
&c. In such instances the affix is strictly proper ; 
but, hke other words, it was extended to more vague 
applications : as wisdom, freedom, &c., i. e. being 
wise, free ; or the state of being wise, free. 

Ship, (Schaft, Ger.,) has also occasioned much 
trouble. We have conjectured it might (as also haft, 
Ger.) be a corrup. of jji hafd, haupt, Ger., i. e. Ca- 
put ; then we have supposed it might be have ; 
again, we have thought it might be a corrup. of 
Super ; which so far as meaning is concerned, is 
the most hkely derivation. But whatever be the 
derivation it evidently serves the same purpose as 
hood, dom, tas, ty, tude, &c. : as. Lordship, the do- 
main of a Lord, the power, authority, dignity, &c., 
of a Lord ; Worship, :|: Worthship, i. e. being wor- 
thy or considered worthy, honour; whence, as a 
verb to worship, i. e. to honour ; worshipful, ho- 
nourable, or considered full of worth, very worthy; 
Courtship is the business, state, or process of courting. 

The preceding affixes are not much employed 
and may be regarded as antique terminations ; for 
they are hardly affixed at pleasure in the present 
time. 

The affix of most general application is ness (niss, 
Ger.) ; which, as well as e%za, It., and esse, Fr., 
seems a corrup. of Essentia, essence. Almost any 
adjective can be converted into a noun by this affix : 
Round, Roundness {Ritondo, Ritondezza, It.) ; Fee- 



% 



190 

ble/ Feebleness {Foible, Foiblesse, Fr.) ; Noble, No- 
bleness (Noblesse, Fr.). So also in Gcr. Fhister, 
dark^ Finsterniss, darkness. 

Home Tooke seems to have fancied that the above 
termination was the same as ness in the names of 
places on the sea coast : as Sheerness, Foulness, 
&c. ; but the latter is manifestly nose or Nasus ; 
and it would be difficult to discover any connexion 
between nose and the affix in question. 

The affix th in connexion with nouns is considered 
by Mr. Tooke the same as the verbal affix eth : we 
have by turns supposed it might be that, or, per- 
haps, the, (what is called definite article,) or a cor. 
of ti/. The last is rather our present opinion. But 
whatever be its derivation its use is the very same 
as ty, 7iess, &'c. : as, wide, width, wideness ; long, 
^ longth, length, longness ; true, truth, the same as 
verity, i. e. Veritas from Verus. 

The affix ty, like te, Fr., ta, It., dad, Sp., is a cor. 
of the Latin affix tas, tat, and Greek ies : as bounty, 
bonte, Fr., bonta, It., bondad, Sp., Bonitas from Bo- 
nus, good; vanity, vamVe', Fr., Vanita, It., Vanidad, 
Sp., Vanitas from Van-us, vain. 

There is the same use of tude, i. e. tudo, Lat., and 
in the ablative tudine ; which is adopted by the 
Italian : Magnitude, Magnitudine, It., Magnitudo, 
from Magnus, great. 

The termination ary contr. into ry, is properly the 
Latin adjective affix aris or arius : as Actuarj^-, Apo- 
thecary, &c., i.e. Actuarius from Actus ; so ca- 



191 

valry, formed on -jf Cavallus^ Caballus, a horse, a 
war-horse ; Rivalry, formed on Rival ; Pleasantry, 
on pleasant, &c. 

The terminations menf, men, mony, are evidently 
the same affix : FRAGMENT-um, a broken part, from 
% Frag-o, to break ; DocuMENT-um, that which 
shows, from Doc-eo, to show ; Commandment what 
is commanded, from Command ; Acumen, sharpness, 
or that which has a point, from Acu-o, to point, 
make sharp ; Patrimonium, Patrimony, what de- 
scends from a father, (Pater,) an inheritance, &c. 

This affix is frequently an adverbial termination in 
Italian, French, and Spanish : Importunamente, It. 
and Sp., Importunement, Fr., importunately, &c. 

The termination age, seems in some instances the 
augmentive accio, It., i. e. ax, Lat. : as villagio, It., 
village, the augmentive form of villa ; viaggio, It., 
voyage of via, a way, a journey ; personaggio, It., 
personage of persona, person ; foliage, Feuillage, 
Fr., oifeuille, Fr., or foglia. It., Folium, a leaf. 

In the modern Italian, accio has become a con- 
temptuous augmentive; but as it remains in the 
form of aggio, it is either neutrologistic or eulogistic. 

In such instances as the following, age is simply 
2L mmiective or possessive 2Lffix ; and seems to be a 
corrup. of ac, ic, ag or ig, already noticed, under 
simple adjectives : parson<7^e, \ic^r age, poundage, 
tonnage, &c. In all such cases, age (as explained 
under simple connective affixes) merely means of, 
connected with, belonging to : parsonage house, is 



192 

the house of a parson ; parsonage benefice, is the 
benefice of a parson ; poundage custom, charge, rate, 
&c., is equivalent to per pound ; patronage is the 
power or agency of a patron. 

A numerous class of verbal nouns derived from the 
Latin, terminate in ation, acion, asion, etlon, esion., 
ition, icioji, ision, otion, oslon, utlon, uslon. In 
Italian, these terminations are at lone, aclone, &c., 
being the form of what is called the ablative singular 
of the Latin. When the modern Latin (i. e. the 
Italian) discontinued the ancient cases, it retained 
this as the only singular termination, for no other 
reason, perhaps, than its agreeable sound. With us, 
the French and the Spaniards, the final e is drop- 
ped : thus, commend, commendation, commenda- 
zione, It. ; complete, completion ; compose, compo- 
sition, composicion, Sp., composizione, It. ; confuse, 
confusion, confusione, It. 

With few exceptions, the French and the English 
are the same : the Italian differs from them in having 
the final e and z, instead of t : Spanish has gene- 
rally c instead of t. 

The last-mentioned nouns are formed on what is 
called the supine. Thus, Factum, to make or do ; 
Factio, (abl. Factione,) a making or doing ; Occa- 
SUM, to fall or happen, Occasio, (abl. Occasione,) 
a happening ; Intrusum, to intrude, Intrusio, (abl. 
Intrusione,) an intruding or intrusion. 

It is evident that all such words are of the same 
nature as our verbal nouns, terminating in ing, i. e. 



193 

participles put substantively : Aumxio is the same 
as hearing; F^isio, (Visione, Fision,) seeing. There 
can in general be no necessity, therefore, for expla- 
nation to such words, when the verbs have been 
explained from which they are derived. 

As these verbal nouns follow the spelling of the 
supine or participle, they occasion some orthogra- 
phic embarrassment to mere English scholars ; for 
whose sake it would have been well, perhaps, if one 
consonant had been adhered to in naturalizing such 
words. There is no difficulty with those verbs and 
adjectives which we have from the Latin supine or 
participle : as, communicate, communication ; pro- 
mote, promotion ; profuse, profusion ; pollute, pol- 
lution ; contrite, contrition ; profess, profession. Of 
those verbs which have d, the nouns have s : deride, 
derision ; protrude, protrusion : but those which as- 
sume another syllable terminate in ation ; as com- 
mend, commendation, from Commendatum. 

Nouns terminating in ant and ent are Latin parti- 
ciples : as, servant, from Servo ; patent, from Pateo, 
&c. In these and in nouns generally adopted entire 
from the Latin, we, as well as our neighbours, have 
what is in that language called the ablative case. 

The termination or changed into er, ar, and in 
French ewr, is generally applied to indicate an agent : 
Creator, he who creates; lover, one that loves; liar, 
one that hes ; beggar, one that begs ; Amator, 
Amateur, Fr. a lover. In Latin, or like os is merely 

o 



194 

a masculine sign or affix : as amor, love, as well as 
amatoVy lover, honor or honos. The French have 
changed or into ewr, w^hen an agent is indicated, and 
into our w^hen agency, state, quality, &c., are indi- 
cated ; and Johnson has followed in this as in several 
other instances, the French mode of spelling: as, 
labour, honour, favour, instead of labor, honor, 
favor. 

The termination ist adopted from Greek, answers 
exactly to er, i. e. or from the Latin : as, reformer 
or reform/,?^; etymologer or etymologi.?^. One of 
these seems more fit and graceful in some connexions 
than the other: er having been longer and more 
generally used does better in connexion with verna- 
cular words : reformer is better than reformist ; but 
etymologist seems better than etymologer ; geogra- 
pher again seems more graceful than geographist. 
Much in all such cases depends on custom ; which 
has mighty sway over our mental and moral habi- 
tudes. 

The adjective affix an or ian, is employed in con- 
nexion with many nouns ending in ic, to form a new 
noun indicating an agent : as, from music, musician ; 
logic, logician ; optics, optician ; metaphysics, meta- 
physician. 

The Latin termination wra, in French and English 
wre, frequently occurs : as creature from create ; pic- 
ture from PiCTUM, PiNGO to paint. ^ 

The Latin termination tia is changed into ice, ce, 



195 

cy : as, Mal-us, Malitia, Malice; FregiuenSj 
Frequent, FREauENTiA, Frequency ; PRiEVALENXiA, 
Prevalence, 

The Greek termination ism, is frequently appended 
to words which are not of Greek extraction: as, 
Calvinism, the doctrinal system of Calvin ; Gallicism, 
a Gallic or French idiom ; vulgarism, a vulgar ex- 
pression ; truism, an obvious or a trite, true remark. 

Many verbal nouns (nouns formed from verbs) 
terminate in ence, i. e. entia, Lat. ; as, providence, 
contr. into prudence, foreseeing, providing, taking- 
care of; credence, believing ; precedence, preceding, 
&c. All such words answer exactly to our own 
participles employed as nouns : as, hearing, seeing, 
smelling. 

We have noticed age as properly an augmentive 
in such words as village, personage, &c. : on, (one, 
It.,) oon, is also an augmentive : as, matron, patron^ 
Matrona, Patronus ; formed on Mater, Pater ; 
saloon, salon, Fr., Salone, It., a great hall, from 
Sola, It., Salle, Fr., cor. of Aula, a hall. This 
Latin affix, which is eulogistic as well as augmentive, 
seems to be a contr. of bonus : thus. Pater-bonus; 
Mater-bona. 

We, like the French, have not any vernacular 
augmentive affix of nouns : such words as village, 
salon, &c., were borrowed in the compound state 
from the Italians. 

Most of the diminutive affixes of nouns are now 
o2 



196 

obsolete, though they yet remain as inseparabfe ter- 
minations in many words. 

The Latin diminutive affix is uncul contr. into cul, 
ully til, ell, el, &c., and in Italian ello, in Spanish 
uelo, illo : as Particula, particle, (from Pars, 
PART-is,) a small part ; Morsiuncula, contr. into 
morsel, (from Morbus, a bite,) a little bite, a snap ; 
Bestiola, cor. into beetle, a little beast or creature ; 
Sedicula, contr. into Sedile, (from Sedes, a seat,) 
cor. into saddle, settle, stool. Thus a great number 
of words terminating in I or le are properly diminu- 
tives : many of them have been adopted directly from 
the Latin ; many have been received through the 
French or Italian. 

The above affix uncul, seems a contraction of Un- 
ciALis, of an inch, of the magnitude of an inch; 
which is equivalent to small, little. 

The Italian has two other diminutives, viz. etto 
{ette, Fr., et, Eng., ito, Sp.) and ino ; which are 
found in many words : as pocket, diminutive of poke, 
pouch, poche, Fr. ; ballot, ballotte, Fr., pallotta, It., 
of ball, balle, Fr., palla, It. ; bullet, boulet, Fr., of 
boule, Fr., another form of balle : kitten, Gattino, 
It., dim. of Cat, Gatto, It., Chat, Fr. 

The French formerly employed the diminutives at 
pleasure like the Italians and Spaniards, but they 
have long disused them ; and this of course is a 
subject of boasting with Voltaire, in reply to the 
Italian critics who accused the French of having no 



197 . 

diminutives. We had them formerly, says Voltaire ; 
but they possessed not sufficient dignity for the noble 
language of the Bourdaloues and Massillons ! ! 

It will, perhaps, flatter the French to remark that 
we probably discontinued the use of diminutives, be- 
cause they set us the example. 

Most of the diminutive terminations which we 
have traceable to the Italian, were derived through 
the French. 

We have noticed ish, i. e. uccioy It., z'co, Sp., ish^ 
Greek, under Adjective Affixes : as, in sweetish, 
brackish, saltish, &c. We had it formerly och^ uch, 
(as it still exists in Scotland : as, beastock, contr. into 
beastyy a little beast,) as in hillock, a little hill . 

As ish, ocky ico, Sp., uccio, It., &c., seem to be 
isk, Gr. ; so, perhaps, ef, etto, It., is the Greek 
adjective ETTON or HETTON, a contr. of ELAT- 
TON also ELASSON; whence, seemingly, our X lyl, 
little and less, as also lad, lass. 

We have also as diminutive aflftxes kin, chen, Ger., 
and lin, ling, lein, Ger. : as, manikin, mdnnchen and 
manlein, Ger., little man ; lambkin, lammchen, Ger., 
little lamb ; goslin, ganschen, Ger., a little goose ; 
lordling, contr. into lording, lordchen, Ger., a little 
or petty lord. Of all the diminutives of nouns, ling 
is the only one which is not quite obsolete ; and 
even this is hardly applied ad libitum : and having 
become like the Italian uccio, uzzo, ecciuolo, exceed- 
ingly contemptuous, we cannot regret its departure. 



198 

Both Jdn or chen and lin, ling, or lein, are evi- 
dently contractions of Mein, (Ger.,) little. 

AFFIXES OF VERBS. 

Here, to avoid repetition, we do not intend to 
notice those terminations already treated of, such as 
est, eth, es, s, ing, ed, and the irregularities of what 
is called the substantive verb. The affixes now in 
view are those immovable terminations which we 
have in many verbs, viz. en, er, ize, fy, ish : ew is 
the obsolete sign of what is commonly called the 
infinitive mood, and is manifestly the same as the 
Greek ein : as PHILEIN, J loven, to love : having 
been once connected with many verbs it was consi- 
dered a fixture, and therefore remains, though it 
adds no meaning ; as, slacken, to slack, blacken, to 
black, &c. Here, as in other instances, custom has 
the effect of making us fancy that en gives meaning 
or force or dignity ; but if we had been more used to 
slack, black, &c., than to slacken, blacken, the case 
would have been reversed. However, as en causes 
no inconvenience, it may remain ; especially as some 
words (after we have been so long used to it) would 
seem exceedingly awkward or unmeaning without 
it: as, enliven, brighten, frighten. 

The verbal termination ize is adopted from Greek : 
as, BAPTIZE, to immerse ; a new verb formed on 
BAPTO, to dip or bathe; liberalize, to render li- 
beral ; temporize, to suit the times (tempora) ; bru- 



199 

talize, to render brutal ; demoralize, to render im- 
moral ; authorize, to give authority to, &c. 

The verbal termination er, is (like en in Saxon 
and German, and ein in Greek) the French, Italian, 
Spanish and Latin affix of what is commonly called 
the infinitive mood : as, Batuo, Beat^ Batuere, 
cor. into Battere^ It., Battre, Fr., Batir, Sp., batter ; 
Sputo, to spit, spout, Sputare, sputter, cor. into 
spurt, spirt. We have many verbs formed upon 
nouns by assuming this affix : as, pester, from pest ; 
flatter, (and Fr.,) from Flatus, &c. 

Where we have duplicates of th^ same verb as 
beat (Batu-o) and batter (Batuere), the latter 
form is generally augmentive : batter, is to beat 
much or forcibly ^ sputter, is to spit mucli or for- 
cibly. 

The verbal termination ish, is a cor. of is, the 
first person present indicative, of the same verbs in 
French : as. Flourish, Banish, Garnish, (cor. into 
Furnish,) &c., in French, Fleuris, Bannis, Garnis, 
&c. The s is now silent in trench ; but it was not 
silent when such words were adopted into the En- 
glish language ; and as oui was anciently ouis, we 
have it corrupted into yes. 

A verbal affix of very general use is j^, i. e. Fio, 
or rather Facio, to make: as, rectify, to make 
RECT-um or right ; beautify, to make beautiful ; 
brutify, to make a brute, i. e. of a human being. In 
this, as in so many other cases, there is a less proper 
application oi fy, which tends to produce equivo- 



200 

calness : as, ver ify ^ justify ^ &c.^ which do not mean 
to make true^ to make jW< ; but to prove true, to 
prove just. 



GRAMMAR. 



This term now so much extended beyond its ori- 
ginal import is generally defined, The art of speaking 
and writing a language with propriety. Without 
any regard to the etymology of the word, (for which 
the reader is referred to the Dictionary,) we are 
willing to take this as the present and established 
signification ; but as the noun jnropriety is one of. 
those vague entities which abound so much in litera- 
ture, we will take the liberty of distinguishing English 
Grammar into two kinds, viz. Rational and Arbi- 
trary. The first is intelligible and useful : the last 
is a jumble of unintelligibleness and absurdity in 
theory ; and it is attended with no utility but much 
inconvenience and trouble in practice. The cause 
of this inconvenience and trouble is, that arbitrary 
rules of speech are imposed, which have a similar 
effect as fetters or cumbrous armour. The reason 
of the unintelligibleness and absurdity of grammar 
as set forth by the grammatists, is their misty notion 
o{ propriety ; which they one while consider as iden- 
tical with reason, and another while as identical wdth 
custom. They would unite these two into a beau- 
tiful system ; which is about as practicable as to 



201 

amalgamate the most incoherent bodies. They are not 
content with saying, one mode of speech is proper^ 
because it is agreeable to the custom of the best 
writers ; and another is improper^ because it is con- 
trary to approved precedent. This would be intelli- 
gible doctrine, and it is the only rationale of arbi- 
trary grammar. 



RATIONAL GRAMMAR OP THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 

This is presented chiefly for the sake of contrast 
to arbitrary grammar ; and after what has been 
already written, it is hardly necessary to show how 
widely different the one is from the other. It must 
be remarked, that Rational Grammar is a desidera- 
tum ; as the grammatic rules of every language are, 
in many respects, absurd, being calculated to render 
it not more but less fit for its professed purpose. 
Happily, though the principle of utility has been 
little regarded, and though there has been much 
blind legislation to establish a despotic system of 
syntactic propriety, our language is yet one of the 
simplest and freest in the world ; and, with a very 
moderate reform, might be wholly disincumbered 
from all grammatic difficulty. We are surely as 
competent to simplify and improve our grammar, as 
to simplify and improve our machinery : and we have 
only to lay aside one of the double forms of the pro- 
nouns or to agree that either form shall be proper in 



202 

any position ; to substitute Be as a regular verb for 
that jumble of anomaly now employed; to throw 
away the useless terminations est^ eth^ es, or s, (ap- 
pended to verbs in connexion with thou and he, 
&c.,) and to disallow all anomalies of verbs, nouns, 
and adjectives. 

The only imaginable objection to such grammatic 
improvement is, that it would appear strange : so is 
every thing new, however excellent, till we become 
used to it. Every new fashion seems odd, if not 
ridiculous, when first introduced ; but it soon appears 
more excellent than that which it supersedes. We 
have only to set up an enlightened and useful cus- 
tom in the room of the old, absurd, and inconvenient 
grammatic usage, and it will immediately begin to 
acquire the venerable qualities of the approved, es- 
tablished, and ancient form of speech ; and the 
oldest institutions and customs were once new. 

If it be asked, What is the amount of utility in 
the proposed alteration? That is considerable in 
every view of the question. It is important to have 
a sensible instead of a senseless kind of grammar ; 
one, for which satisfactory reasons can be assigned to 
youths and foreigners. It is of considerable utility 
to have an easy instead of a difficult kind of syntactic 
propriety ; for with the former, the writer or speaker 
is enabled to direct his whole consideration to the 
justness of his thoughts and the meaning of his 
words ; but a complicated syntax distracts his atten- 
tion ; and having to accomplish the two operations 



203 

of good sense and good grammar at one and the same 
moment, the consequence frequently is, that both 
are badly performed. We sometimes find good sense 
expressed in bad grammar ; and we often find good 
grammar garnishing bad sense : nay, even bad com- 
position is often dressed up in good grammar ; and 
good composition often appears in the dishabille of 
faulty grammar. 

We are willing to subscribe to the motto assumed 
by Lindley Murray, from the Lectures of Dr. Blair . 
*^ They who are learning to compose and arrange 
^heir sentences with accuracy and order, are learning 
at the same time to think with accuracy and order ;'* 
as also to another sentence of the same rhetorician : 
" The study of arranging and expressing our thoughts 
with propriety, teaches to think as well as to speak 
accurately." But how are we to understand the 
nouns accuracy and propriety in all such proposi- 
tions ? If they mean what is commonly called gram- 
matic propriety and accuracy, such as saying, thou 
lovest, instead of thou lave ; we were, instead of we 
was, &.C. ; there is just as little connexion between 
such etiquette and learning to think accurately or to 
express thought accurately, i. e. definitely, as there 
is between learning to bow and learning to reason. 
Logical accuracy of expression is of the highest im- 
portance ; and this is the proper object of rational 
grammar : but this is so far from being identical 
with arbitrary grammar, that the one is often at 
variance with the other. 



204 



ARBITRARY GRAMMAR. 

The reader is now sufficiently aware of the true 
character of arbitrary grammar. It was not dictated 
by reason, and therefore cannot be referred to any 
rational principles. But though we wish to see it 
discarded by a general disuse of all anomalies and 
unmeaning terminations, and changes of verbs and 
pronouns, yet such reform must be effected (if ever 
effected) by the influential members of the literary 
world. All others must be content with established 
usage. They must endeavour to speak and write 
grammatically, merely to avoid the imputation of 
ignorance and illiterateness. In this, as in so many 
other things, we must submit to bondage, for we are 
not free to follow reason — unless we have sufficient 
hardihood to set public opinion at defiance. 

For the use of those who must prudently comply 
with the prescribed etiquette, we shall endeavour to 
present it in as intelligible a form, and in as small a 
compass, as possible. 

THE GRAMMAR OF PRONOUNS. 

The words called Pronouns are, I, Me, Thou, 
Thee, He, Him, She, Her, It, We, Us, You or Ye, 
They, Them, Who, Whom, Which, This, These, 
That, Those. 

There can be no mistake respecting the meaning 
of these words, with any persons who have heard 



% 205 

them pronounced a few times in the common course 
of speech : I^ is perceived to indicate the same per- 
son as Me, Thou as Thee, He as Him, &c. ; but as 
these double forms of the same words had necessa- 
rily, in Latin, different applications, the English 
grammatists thought a similar diversity of applica- 
tion proper in the English language ; and they have 
succeeded in making a useless and embarrassing dis- 
tinction an essential part of arbitrary grammar. 
Grammatic propriety, as to the pronouns, may be 
included in the following particulars. 

THE DOUBLE FORMS OF PRONOUNS. 

These we will range in two classes : 

1. I, Thou, He, She, Who, We, They. 

2. Me, Thee, Him, Her, Whom, Us, Them. 
[Ye or You, It, Which, That, This, &c., are not 

included in the above enumeration ; because, fortu- 
nately, they have but one form.] 

Those of the first class are called, by grammarians, 
nominatives, or are said to be in the nominative case: 
those in the second class are called objectives, or are 
said to be in the objective case ; but we shall, for the 
sake of intelligibleness, call the one (I, Thou, He, 
She, &c.) the Jirst form ; and the other (Me, Thee, 
Him, &c.) the second form of the pronoun. There 
is a peculiar manner of employing the pronouns, for 
which it is not easy to give any rule perfectly ac- 
curate. The nearest approach to accuracy seems 
this : When any one of the words commonly 



206 

called pronouns, is employed to indicate an agent, 
it is put in the first form ; and when it is employed 
to indicate an object of some action, it is put in the 
second form. Thus : I love thee ; thou lovest me ; 
he loves her ; she loves him ; they love us ; we love 
them ; the man whom she loves is the person who 
loves her. These are all examples of proper gram- 
mar, and when inverted they present instances of 
improper grammar : Me love thou ; thee lovest I; 
him loves she; her loves he; them love me; us love 
they; the man who her loves is the person wham 
loves she. 

Another approximation to accuracy, as a general 
rule^ might be put thus : When the pronoun stands 
before the verb it is put in \hc fi^rst form ; when it 
stands after the verb it is put in the second form: 
as, I see them, they see us, &c. This is the usual, 
but not the invariable, order of composition in the 
English language, and therefore the above would 
not hold as a universal rule ; for in such instances as 
the following, the second form of the pronoun, or 
what is called the objective case, stands before the 
verb : Whom seek ye ? He whom ye seek. Here, 
in both cases, whom is the object of the verb seek, 
though it stands before it. Nor is the other imper- 
fect rule less objectionable, viz. when the pronoun 
denotes an agent, it is in the first form or nominative 
case, and when it denotes the object of an action, it 
is in the second form or objective case ; for by em- 
ploying the verb in what is called the passive instead 



207 

of the active voice^ the grammatic relation of agent 
and object is wholly changed, as is evident in the 
following examples : Thou art loved by me ; I am 
loved by thee ; she is loved by him : not thee art 
loved by I, &c. 

It is impossible to give accurate and adequate 
rules concerning arbitrary grammar, which can never 
be reduced to rational principles ; for '^ what reason 
did not dictate, reason can never explain." 

Perhaps the most unobjectionable rule that can 
be given is the following : A pronoun is always in 
ihejirst form or nominative case, except first, when 
it is the object of a verb active or transitive ; as, you 
love him, toJiom I hate ; he dreads us, but despises 
them; we, as well as they, disregard hi?n, but re- 
spect her, &c. In these instances the pronouns him, 
whom, them, us, are, in the language of gramma- 
rians, governed by the active verbs, (love, hate, 
dreads, &c.,) in the accusative or objective case. 
There is neither much sense nor intelligibleness in 
such terms ; but every reader, however little ac- 
quainted with the subject before, must now under- 
stand what is meant by the position. Every pronoun 
is in the Jirst farm or nominative case, except first, 
when the object of a verb active. But there is a 
second exception, viz. when a pronoun is preceded 
by any of those words called prepositions ; or (to 
adopt the common grammatic phraseology) when 
the pronoun is governed by a preposition. 

The words called prepositions are, of, to, from, 



208 ^ 

over, through, above, for, by, in, below, beneath, 
under, into, at, with, before, after, behind, within, 
without, up, beyond, about, near, down, on, upon, 
off, against, among, between, &c. 

When these words come immediately before any 
pronoun, it is to be put in the second farm^ called 
also oblique case, objective case, accusative case : as, 
I went with them^ from him to Aer, &c. &c.: not, 
I went with they, from he to she, &c. 

The most usual grammatic improprieties as to 
the pronouns, consist in putting me for /, him for 
he, her for she, them for they, &c., in the following 
manner : " Who is there ?" " Me," instead of I. 
May William and me go to London ? It should be 
William and /. Them and us went out together ; 
they and we went out together. Him and her are 
well matched ; he and she are well matched. 

There is hardly a possibility of grammatic impro- 
priety in the application of he, she, it ; but very illi- 
terate persons are apt to employ he instead of it, 
when speaking of objects devoid of sex, in the fol- 
lowing manner : This knife is not sharp, he is very 
blunt, &c. 

When he or she is applied to objects devoid of sex, 
respect must be paid to established usage. The sun 
must be spoken of as he, the moon as she, &c. It is 
absurd to attempt to assign any rational principle for 
this custom, which varies among different nations ; 
for with the Anglo-Saxons, the sun was spoken of as 
she and the moon as he. We, in this matter, follow 



^ 209 

the Latins, who followed the Greeks, who probably 
followed the Egyptians, who perhaps imitated the 
Babylonians ; for much of the general agreement, or 
commcm consent, of nations and languages, is refer- 
rible, not to reason, but to custom founded on imi- 
tation. 

IlHterate persons very frequently employ them in- 
stead of these or those : thus. Them men were very 
noisy; it should be, those men were very noisy: 
Hand me them books, — those books. 

There is often a departure from propriety in chang- 
ing from one person and number to another : thus. 
Every man knows their own affairs best ; it ought to 
be. Every man knows M* own affairs best. Can any 
one be certain, at their first entrance on life, that 
thei/ shall be always successful ; it should be his 
and he. 

The grammatists have succeeded in establishing a 
distinction between who and which: the former is to 
be employed only when speaking of persons : as, the 
man who came, the woman who came, the men who 
are, the buds which are, the trees which grow, &c. ; 
not the man which was, &c., the birds who are, &c. 
Fortunately that is equally free from change to de- 
note nominative and accusative, and from any parti- 
cular manner of application. We can say, the man 
that was here, the bird that sings, &c. 

Some of the grammatists have endeavoured to in- 
terdict the use of whose, more properly whds, except 
in connexion with a person, like who and whom: 

p 



V 210 

but they have not succeeded. We can say, the bird 
whose leg was hurt, r,as well as the man whose leg 
was hurt. 

Persons are apt, without care, to blunder in ap- 
plying this and thesCy that and those: as, this twelve- 
month, instead of these twelvemonths : those or these 
kind of people, instead of that or this kind of people. 

There is hardly any difference between the appli- 
cation of this with its plural these, and that with its 
plural those. If two objects, or sets of objects, be 
referred to, this and these are applied to the nearer, 
in time, place, or reference ; that and those are ap- 
plied to the more distant : thus. This is a more irk- 
some part of the author s task than that which led 
him to treat of more intellectual topics : These are 
the petty, unmeaning, and useless distinctions of 
arbitrary grammar now under consideration ; but 
those inquiries to which, in a former part of this 
work, he directed the attention of the reader, are of 
a loftier character. 



THE GRAMMAR OF VERBS. 

We must exhibit the combinations, or what gram- 
marians call the conjugations of verbs, beginning with 
that jumble of anomalous incoherence, or of dissimi- 
lar parts, commonly designated the substantive or 
neuter verb To Je. 



211 



I am. 


We ^ 


Thou art. 


Yew You 1 


He -J 
She f 


Tl-y I are. 
These / 


It \ is 


Men 1 


John i 


Birds, ^ 


Man,J 


&c. 


&c. 




The above is 


denominated, by grammatists, the 


Present Tense, Indicative Mood. 


I ^ 


We ^ 


He 


Ye or You 1 


She > was. They f 

, t r^, > were. 

It I These / 


Man,-' 


Men , 1 


&c. 


Birds, ' J 


Thou wast. 


&c. 



The above is called, by some grammatists, the 
Imperfect Tense ; by others, the Past Tense. 

The other parts of what is called the substantive 
verb, are. Be, Being, Been ; as, I shall be, I have 
been, &c. 

It is hardly possible for any mistake to happen 
in these parts, except, perhaps, that children and 
foreigners would be naturally induced by analogy, 
(unless prevented by the force of custom,) to say, I 
have beed, having beed, &c., instead of, I have been, 
having been. 

We have noticed how simple the substantive verb 
1^ p2 



212 

would be, if rendered regular, by discarding all such 
dissimilar parts as, am, is, are, was, were: thus, I 
be, &c., I beed, &c., I have beed, being, having beed. 
But arbitrary grammar prohibits such reasonable 
simplicity and utility. 

When directly preceded by let, may, might, can, 
could, will, would, shall, should. Be is unchanged ; 
thus. Let me be, let him be ; I may be, he may be ; 
I might be, he might be ; I can be, I could be ; I 
will, shall, would, or should be, &c. 

The grammatists have conferred on such combi- 
nations a number of high-sounding, but insignificant 
or absurd designations ; as. Imperative Mood, Poten- 
tial Mood, &c. &c. 

When the substantive verb is immediately pre- 
ceded by If, {% Gif, i. e. Give,) Though, Suppose, 
Grant, (or Supposing, &c.,) and other sifnilar terms, 
which usually indicate uncertainty or contingency, 
established usage is so various as to set rules at defi- 
ance: thus. 

If ^ If I be, or If I am; 
Though, > If thou be, or If thou art ; 
&c. 3 If he be, or If he is, 
&c. 
If I was, or If I were ; 
If thou wast, or If thou wert ; 
If he was, or If he were, 
&c. 
Present grammatic usage leans more to If I were 



213 

than If I was, and to If he were than If he was; 
but, concerning the distinction between Indicative 
and Subjunctive, grammatists are as much divided 
as custom is : and, according to the old doggrel 
couplet. 

When doctors disagree 
Disciples are free. 



The following words, called Auxiliary Verbs, have 
no change of termination, except in connexion with 
Thou: thus, 

I may, thou mayest, he may, &c. 
I might, thou mightest, he might, &c. 
I can, thou canst, he can, &c. 
I will, thou wilt, he will, &c. 
I shall, thou shalt, he shall, &c. 
Wilt and shalt are contractions oi wiliest , shallest; 
as would, should, are o^ willed, shalled, &c. 

In all the combinations of mai/, can, &c., (with 
the exception of what is called the second person 
singular,) there is as much grammatic simplicity as 
can be wished ; for there are no useless and embar- 
rassing inflections or changes : thus, 
may 
can 
shall 
will 
could 
should 
might 



I 

He 
We 

&c. 



^ be. 



L 



214 



I 

He 

We 

You 

They 

&c. 



love. 



may 
can 
will 
shall 
could 
would 
should 
might 

The verb Have, so much used in connexion with 
other verbs^ is, owing to contraction, of a very irre- 
gular form : thus, 

I have. Thou hast, (contr. of havest,) He hath, or 
has, contr. of haveth, or haves, We, Ye or You, 
They, &c., have. 

The above is commonly called the Present Tense. 
I 
He 



We 

&c. 



had (contr. of havedj, Thou hadst. 



The above is called, by some, the Imperfect, by 
others, the Past Tense. There is another combina- 
tion, or reduplication, of the same word, called Plu- 
perfect Tense. 

I 

We 

You 

They. 



have had : Thou hast had. 



He -y 
She I 
It, &c. J 



hath, or has had. 



215 

To have is called the Infinitive Mood ; Having is 
called Present Participle ; Had is called, by some, 
the Past Participle ; by others, the Perfect Parti- 
ciple. 

Do is also frequently employed in connexion with 
other verbs ; and, in what is called the past tense, 
X Doed, is now contracted into Did : 

I do, thou dost, he doth, or does ; We, &c., do. 
I did, thou didst, he did, we did, &c. 
What is denominated a Regular Verb is combined 
with nouns and pronouns in the following manner : 
I 

We 

You or Ye 
They 
These 
Men 
&c. 
Thou trainest, or dost train. 
He 
She 

It ^ trains, or does train. 
Man 
&c. 

This is commonly called Present Tense, Indica- 
tive Mood. 

^, > trained, or did train. 
She I 

&c. y 



train, or do train. 



216 
We 

y trained^ or did train. 



^heyf 



&c. 

Thou trainedst, or didst train. 

This is commonly called either the Imperfect or 
the Past Tense, Indicative Mood. 

/ have trained, See, is called the Perfect Tense. 

I had trained, Sec, is called the Pluperfect Tense. 

/ shall or will train. Sec, is called the first future 
tense. 

I shall or will have trained, Sec, is called the 
second future tense. 

To train is called Infinitive Mood. Training is 
called Present Participle. 

Trained is called Past Participle, or Passive Parti- 
ciple. But these designations are as useless, for any 
practical purpose, as they are unmeaning or false or 
absurd. 

By connecting the past participle of an active or 
transitive verb, with the substantive verb, vv^hat 
grammatists term the passive voice is formed : thus, 

/ am trained. Sec I was trained. Sec I have 
been trained. Sec I had been trained, &c. I will 
or shall be trained. Sec Sec Sec If I am or be 
trained. Sec I may be trained. Sec Sec Sec 

It is wholly unnecessary to exhibit the verbs more 
fully. The reader will clearly perceive how the 
various combinations are formed. 

All those verbs which do not admit of being com- 



217 

billed with the substantive verb^ are called intransi- 
tive or neuter : such as, sit, stand, lie, sleep, &c. 
We can say, I am trained, loved, watched, &c. ; but 
we do not say, I am sat, stood, slept, &c. 

One grammatic distinction of verbs, therefore, is 
into active and neuter, or transitive and intransitive: 
the former, (as already noticed,) when acting upon 
the pronouns, put them in what is called the objec^ 
tive case : thus, I love him, not I love he ; he loves 
me, not he loves I. 

A certain number of verbs are called irregular, 
because they do not assume ed, for what are called 
the past tense and perfect participle, like, I love, I 
loved, I have loved. Thus, according to custom, we 
must not say, I begin, I beginned, I have heginned; 
but, I began, I have begun. 

The following is a list of the irregular verbs : 

1. Those which admit of no change: (as, 1 put, 
I have put;) Put, Cost, Beat, (sometimes beaten m 
employed as the participle ; as, he is beaten,) Burst, 
Cast, Cut, Hit, Hurt, Let, Rid, Set, Shed, Shut, 
Split, Sweat, Read. 

2. Such as have one anomalous termination : as. 
Abide, Abode ; Sell, Sold (corrup. of selled) ; Be^ 
seech. Besought ; Bind, Bound ; Bleed, Bled ; 
Breed, Bred; Bring, Brought; Buy, Bought; 
Catch, Caught; Cling, Clung; Creep, Crept ; Dig, 
Dug; Feed, Fed; Feel, Felt; Fight, Fought; Find, 
Found; Flee, Fled; Fling, Flung; Get, Got ; Gild, 
Gilt (also regular) ; Gird, Girt (R.) ; Grind, Ground ; 



218 

Have, Had (conir. of HavedJ ; Hang, Hung; also 
Hanged, or regular ; Hear, Heard (contr. of Hear- 
edj ; Held, Hold ; Keep, Kept (contr. of Keeped) ; 
Lay, Laid (contr. of Layed) ; Lead, Led ; Leave, 
Left ; Lend, Lent ; Lose, Lost ; Make, Made ; 
Meet, Met ; Pay, Paid (contr. of Payed) ; Say, Said 
{contv, of Sayed) ; Seek, Sought; Send, Sent; Shoe, 
Shod ; Shoot, Shot ; Shrink, Shrunk ; Sing, Sung ; 
Sink, Sunk ; Sit, Sat ; Sleep, Slept ; Sling, Slung ; 
Slink, Slunk ; Speed, Sped ; Spend, Spent ; Spill, 
Spilt, also Spilled ; Spin, Spun ; Stand, Stood ; Stick, 
Stuck; Sting, Stung; Stink, Stunk; String, Strung; 
Swing, Swung ; Teach, Taught ; Tell, Told (contr. 
of Telled) ; Think, Thought ; Weep, Wept. 

3. Those which have two or more anomalous ter- 
minations : as, I begin, I began, I have begun : Be- 
gin, Began, Begun ; Know, Knew, Known ; Rise, 
Rose, Risen ; Arise, Arose, Arisen ; Blow, Blew, 
Blown ; Awake, Awoke (also Awaked), Awaken ; 
Bear (to bring forth) ^ Bare, Born ; Bear (to carry) , 
Bore, Borne ; Begin, Began, Begun ; Bid, Bade, 
also Bad and Bid, Bidden, also Bid ; Break, Broke, 
Broken ; Choose, Chose, Chosen ; Cleave, Clove or 
Cleft, Cloven or Cleft ; Come, Came, Come ; Dare, 
Durst, Dared ; Do, Did, Done ; Draw, Drew, 
Drawn ; Drive, Drove, Driven ; Drink, Drank, 
Drunk; Eat, Ate, Eaten; Fall, Fell, Fallen; Fly, 
Flew, Flown ; Forsake, Forsook, Forsaken ; Freeze, 
Froze, Frozen ; Give, Gave, Given ; Go, Went, 
Gone; Grow, Grew, Grown; Knew, Know, Known; 



219 

Ring, Rang, or Rung ; Run, Ran, Run ; See, Saw, 
Seen ; Shake, Shook, Shaken ; Slay, Slew, Slain ; 
Slide, Slid, Slidden; Smite, Smote, Smitten; Speak, 
Spoke, Spoken; Spit, Spat, Spit or Spitten; Spring, 
Sprang, Sprung; Steal, Stole, Stolen; Stride, Strode 
or Strid, Stridden ; Strive, Strove, Striven ; Swear, 
Swore, Sworn ; Swim, Swam, Swum ; Take, Took, 
Taken; Tear, Tore, Tom ; Throw, Threw, Thrown ; 
Tread, Trod, Trodden; Wear, Wore, Worn ; Weave, 
Wove, Woven ; Write, Wrote, Written. 

The reader may compare these irregular verbs 
with the exhibition of them in a former part of the 
work, where it is proposed to render them regular. 

Pronouns and nouns, when combined with verbs, 
are commonly distinguished into number and person : 
thus, 

/ am, first person singular. 

Thou ar^, second person singular. 

He 

She 

It ^ ^y third person singular 

Man 
&c. 

We are, first person plural. 

Ye or You are, second person plural. 

They -s 

These / 

V are, third person plural. 

&c. 3 

Thou is obsolete, except in prayer and among the 



220 



Quakers^ and in jocular or contemptuous speech ; for 
instead of saying thou art, thou mayest, thou lovest, 
&c., when addressing one person we say, you are, 
you may, you love. But in prayer to God we say, 
thou art, thou mayest, thou wast, thou lovest, &c. 



DIRECTIONS CONCERNING THE SUBSTANTIVE VERB. 

Ungrammatic people are apt to say, I be, Thou 
be. He be. We be, You be. They be ; instead of, I 
am. Thou art, He is. We are. You are, They are. 

There is seldom any mistake made by persons who 
are at all accustomed to grammatic language except 
in the third person; in which the greatest grammatic 
proficients are apt to blunder, particularly in extem- 
poraneous speaking, when their sentences are long 
and intricate ; erpploying is for are and are for is^ 
and was for were, or were for was, 

Grammatic etiquette admits of this plain rule. 

When one object is spoken of, is for the present^ 
and was for the past, must be employed : when two 
or more objects are spoken of, are for the present , 
and were for the past, must be employed. Thus, 

Man is a rational creature : he is the natural lord 
of the lower animals, which are commonly called 
irrational ; but he is mortal as w^ell as they are, and 
some of them are longer lived than he is, Plato and 
Aristotle are two of the most ancient philosophers 
whose writinojs are extant ; but neither the one nor 



221 

the other is to be compared with some modern phi- 
losophers. 

Some persons blunder by using were instead of 
ivas : thus, I were at London yesterday, he were in 
the country last week, for, I was in London yester- 
day, he was in the country last week. But the 
most common grammatic error is in employing was 
instead of were : as, we ivas there, you was there, 
they was there, for we were, you were, they were. 

The following are instances of grammatic inaccu- 
racy : the improper words are put in Italics. 

Was we wrong ? Was you there ? Was they 
here ? Was the ancients well acquainted with sci- 
ence ? Was Plato and Aristotle truly great philoso- 
phers ? There is many authors in the present time. 
There are some kind of writings which is wholly 
destitute of merit when tried by the test of utility ; 
which are the true standard of excellence. The 
mechanism of clocks and watches were wholly un- 
known a few centuries ago. Folly and vice is often 
united. There was more equivocators than one. 

The substantive verb being of frequent recurrence, 
the grammatic learner should practise much upon 
it to acquire a correct habit ; keeping this obvious 
principle steadily in view as to the third person, viz. 
When one object is spoken of, is or was, not are or 
were, must be used : when two or more objects are 
spoken of, are or were, not is or was, must be used ; 
1. e. when the nominative to the verb is singular, is 



222 

and was must be employed ; but when the nomina- 
tive is plural^ are and were must be employed. 

The following are examples of false grammar. 

The smiles of counterfeit friendship is to be sus- 
pected ; it should be, are to be suspected. The num- 
ber of the inhabitants of Great Britain are greatly 
increased of late years ; is greatly increased. No- 
thing but vain and foolish pursuits are agreeable to 
some persons — is agreeable. There is many occa- 
sions in life in which silence and reserve is true wis- 
dom ; it should be are. There are many an occasion 
in life in which silence or reserve are true wisdom ; 
it should be is ; because many an occasion is one 
entity or a singular nominative ; as, also, silence or 
reserve ; for every disconnective word (neither, nor, 
either, or, &c.) has just the opposite effect of a con- 
nective word, such as and. The business that re- 
lated to ecclesiastical meetings, matters, and persons, 
were to be ordered according to the king's direction, 
— was. The affairs belonging to the church, was to 
be ordered by the king, — were. In him was happily 
blended true dignity and affability, — were. In him 
were happily blended true dignity with affability,-— 
was. The conjunction and connects two or more 
singular nouns or pronouns into a plural nominative ; 
but with, besides, as well as, and such words do not 
connect two or more singular nouns and pronouns 
into a plural nominative. The support of so many 
of his relations were a heavy tax upon his industry, — • 



223 

was. The support of his mother and the expense of 
his sister z^;a* a heavy tax upon his industry, — -were. 
The support of his mother with the expense of his 
sister zi;ere a heavy tax on his industry, — was. What 
is wisdom and virtue to the sons of folly ? Recon- 
ciliation was offered on terms as moderate as was 
consistent with a permanent union. Not one of all 
these sons of folly «re happy. And the fame of his 
person and of his wonderful actions were diffused 
abroad. The variety of the productions of genius, 
like those of art, are without limit. To live soberly, 
righteously, and piously, are required of all men : 
here, to live, (not soberly, righteously, and piously,) 
is the nominative to the verb. To be of a pure and 
humble mind, to exercise benevolence, to cultivate 
piety, is the sure means of becoming peaceful and 
happy. Here there are three distinct entities spoken 
of or enumerated in the nominative to the verb, and, 
therefore, not is but are should be used. 



DIRECTIONS CONCERNIIsTG THE WORDS CALLED 
AUXILIARIES OR HELPING VERBS. 

These are. May, Might, Can, Could, Will, 
Would, Shall, Should ; and, fortunately, they have 
no change of termination except that they assume 
st in connexion with thou : thus, I may. Thou 
mayst, He may, &c. : will and shall, have, instead 
of wiliest, shallest, wilt and shalt. , 



224 

All, therefore, that the grammatic learner has to 
remember in using these words is to put st with 
thou : thus, Thou mayst train, thou mightst train, 
thou canst train, thou couldst train, thou wilt train, 
thou shalt train, thou shouldst train. 

Do is frequently employed as an auxiliary and 
changes thus : I do, thou doest or dost, he doeth, or 
doth or does, we, you, they, &c., do ; I did, thou 
didst, he did, we did, &c. ; I have done, thou hast 
done, &c. 

Here all you have to remember, is to put est or st 
with thou, and eth or es with he, she, it, or any one 
object in the third person present : in the past tense, 
did remains unchanged, except that st is adde:d after 
thou. 

Children and foreigners, following analogy, natu- 
rally say, I do, we do, &c. ; I doed, he doed, we 
doed, &c., I have doed, &c. ; instead of which they 
must learn to say and write, I do, thou dost, he doth 
or does, &c. ; we did, thou didst, &c. ; I have done, 
&c. 

Have is also, with another verb, considered aux- 
iliary, and is similarly contracted : thus, I have, we 
have, you have, they have, thou hast, he hath or 
has ; I had, thou hadst, he had, we had, &c. 

Here, again, you have only to remember to say or 
write, thou hast, he hath or has, thou hadst ; in all 
the other combinations have and had undergo no 
change. 

The termination eth or th is now almost obsolete ; 



225 

^^ or ^ being commonly used : thus^ he trains^ she 
loves^ it rains; not he traineth^ she loveth^ it raineth. 

DIRECTIONS CONCERNING REGULAR VERBS. 

These are^ fortunately, very simple ; for they have 
no useless and troublesome changes or terminations, 
except est or st in connexion with thou, and eth, th, 
€s or s^ in connexion with he, she, it, or any one 
object or singular nominative in the third person, 
and what is called present tense. The only mistake, 
therefore, which persons are apt to commit who are 
at all accustomed to grammatic usage, is in not put- 
ting est in connexion with thou, and es or s in con- 
ne:5^ion with he, she, it, or any singular noun, in the 
present tense. The second person singular, i. e. thou 
is (as already intimated) never used except in prayer, 
and by the Quakers, and in jocular or contemptuous 
discourse. The chief attention, therefore, of the 
grammatic learner should be directed to the third 
person singular, present tense ; and he has only to 
keep this explicit rule steadily in view : When the 
nominative is singular, i. e. when one object is con- 
nected with the word called a regular verb, es or s 
must be affixed ; but when the nominative is plural, 
i. e. when two or more objects are indicated, es or s 
must not be affixed. Thus, 

John trains the pointers : John and James train 
the pointers : John or James trains the pointers. 
William possesses good sense and loves instruction ; 
he diligently applies to useful learning; and his 



226 

brothers possess much affection for him : they, too, 
iQve instruction and apph/ diligently to learning. 

The following afe instances of grammatic impro- 
priety : the improper words (i. e. in having or in not 
having es or s affixed) are put in Italics. 

All joy and tranquillity dwells there : Much joy, 
or at least tranquillity dwell there. Thoughtless and 
intemperate pleasure usually deteriorate both mind 
and character : Intemperate pleasures usually deterio^ 
rates both mind and character. Ignorar^ce and negli- 
gence has produced the eifect : Ignorance or negli- 
gence have produced the eifect : Ignorance with 
negligence produce bad consequences : Negligence 
as well as ignorance produce bad consequences. 
Not only his fortune his reputation suffer by his 
misconduct. The king and his courtiers has passed 
by : The king with his courtiers have passed by : 
The king as well as his courtiers have passed by. 
Nothing delight me so much as the works of nature. 
Public and privj^te happiness, national dignity, and 
all that is most interesting to human beings in this 
world, depend^ greatly ou the character pf the go- 
vernment. 

In all the above instances, the attentive learner 
will perceive that the words put in Italics are wrong, 
because es or s is affixed when the nominative is plural, 
9r omitted when the nominative is singular. There 
is some difficulty at first, in ascertaining the nomi- 
native or promptly discovering whether it be plural 
pr singular. To this, point, th<erefore, the gramma- 



227 

tic student should apply particular attention, until it 
becomes quite familiar to him. The following re- 
marks are intended for his assistance. 

1. All nouns and pronouns that are evidently 
plural, i. e. which indicate two or more objects, must 
not have e* or s affixed to the verb with which they 
are connected : as. They, These, Those, Men, Wo- 
men, Children, Houses, &c. : thus. They love us — 
not They loves us. These are the friends of the poor 
— not These is the friends of the poor. Men naturally 
love their children— not loves. People do not con- 
sider how much they are improved by adversity — 
not People does not consider how much it is im- 
proved by adversity, &c. 

2. When two or more singular nouns and pro- 
nouns are enumerated or added together, they form 
a plural nominative to the verb : thus, John and 
James and William love play : John, James, Wil- 
liam, equally love play. Robert and his sister Mary 
often walk together in the fields : both he and she 
prefer the country to the city : they are fond of bo- 
tany, and seldom return from: their walks without 
some botanic specimens. 

In all such cases the pronouns must be in the 
plural number. 

3. Two or more circumstances form a plural no- 
minative : thus. To see the beauties of nature and to 
listen to the music of the groves, produce agreeable 
sensations— not produces. The flashing lightning 
and the reverberating thunder, naturally produce 

a2 



228 

strong emotions, especially in the minds of timid 
persons. To speak truth, to be diligent in business, 
punctual to engagements, and honourable in transac- 
tions, are important rules of prudential wisdom ; and 
they seldom fail to give respectability to the charac- 
ter of every one who diligently observes them. 

The conjunctive and, is the only word that con- 
nects two or more nouns, pronouns, or members of 
a sentence into a plural nominative : thus, The sun 
that shines, the rain that descends, and the wind 
that blows, produce good to mankind. The con- 
junction is sometimes omitted : The sun, the rain, 
the wind, produce good to mankind. Such words 
as with, as well as, &c., though they seem connec- 
tive, do not form a plural nominative: thus. The 
king with his body guard has just passed — not 
have. The king as well as his attendants has 
passed by. 

As before intimated, all disconnective words, such 
as neither, nor, either, or, have the opposite effect of 
' and. There is in many people, neither knowledge, 
wisdom, nor virtue — not are. It is either John or 
James that delights in music. Beauty, wealth, or 
fame, is a very precarious possession. 

Except when the noun or pronoun coming after 
the disjunctive is plural, the nominative is always 
singular : thus. Neither adversity nor enemies dis- 
turb his equanimity — not disturbs. Neither enemies 
nor adversity disturbs — not disturb. It is better in 
such cases, if possible, to put the plural word last ; 



229 

but in all such forms of expression the inconvenience 
of arbitrary grammar is strikingly obvious. 

Concerning nouns which indicate plurality when 
considered in one view^ and unity or individuality 
when considered in another — there is no uniform 
grammatic usage. Some authors would write, " My 
people do not consider ; they have not known me :" 
others. My people does not consider: it has not 
known me. The multitude e^igerly pursue pleasure 
as their chief good. The multitude eagerly pursues 
pleasure as its chief good. The council were divided 
in their sentiments. The council was divided in its 
sentiments. In such cases there is, fortunately, not 
yet any established etiquette or despotic authority : 
the speaker or writer is left to the freedom of his own 
will ; only having once made choice as to plural or 
singular, there is propriety in keeping to it ; not 
saying, My people do not consider: it has not 
known me : or. My people does not consider: they 
have not known me, &c. 

4. Any noun, pronoun, or member of a sentence 
immediately preceded by a preposition, is never in- 
cluded in the nominative to a verb. This is worthy 
of attention, as tending to prevent grammatic blun- 
ders ; many of which happen from supposing that 
plural nouns, pronouns, or expressions, are the nomi" 
native^ merely because they come before the verb : 
hence such instances of false grammar as the fol- 
lowing : The number of the signatures are twenty. 
The number of places amount to twenty. Many a 



230 

failure in the transactions of business and in human 
affairs originate in imprudence. John with James 
and William live in the country. In all these ex- 
amples, the nominative is singular, and therefore x>, 
not are, should be employed ; and the regular verb 
should have s affixed, thus : The number of the sig- 
natures is twenty : The number of the places amounts 
to twenty. Many a failure in the transactions, &c., 
originates in imprudence. John with James and 
William lives in the country. 

The following are instances of grammatic impro- 
priety : 

The language should be perspicuous and correct : 
in proportion as either of these two qualities are 
wanting, the language is imperfect. Every one of 
the letters hear date after his banishment. Each of 
his children behave badly. Of the diversities in hu- 
man character, some is better and some is worse; 
none is wholly faultless. None^ i. e. no one, is pro- 
perly singular, but custom has assigned to it a plural 
import. Some, like many, when a singular noun is 
not put after it, is always plural : thus. Some one 
says ; Some author says; Many a one has said so; 
Many an author has said so, &c. But if these ad- 
jectives be not connected with a singular noun, they 
are always considered plural : thus. Some say — not 
says. Many have said so— not has said. 



231 



DIRECTIONS CONCERNING THE IRREGULAR VERBS. 

These have been exhibited ; and the grammatic 
learner should either commit them to memory or 
practice much upon them. They differ from the 
regular verbs only in not having ed affixed in what 
is called the past tense. The following are some of 
the most frequent ungrammatic uses of the irregular 
verbs : 

I knowed him long ago ; I have knowed him many 
years — it should be, I knew, I have known. The 
wind hlowed hard last night ; The wind has hlowed 
hard all day — blew, has blown. John buyed a knife 
yesterday, and he has buyed a pencil to-day — 
bought. The horse drawed in the waggon yester- 
day, and he has drawed in the plough to-day — drew, 
has drawn. The corn growed well in the spring, 
and has growed well ever since — grew, has grown. 

It is to be hoped that literary persons of sufficient 
influence will set the example of discarding such 
anomalous proprieties; but, in the mean time, the 
middle and lower classes of the grammatic world 
must prudently, perhaps, do homage to established 
usage. 



2:i2 



REMARKS ON THE PREPOSITIONS. 

It has been already observed, when these come 
immediately before any pronoun which has two 
forms, (called nomiiiative and objective^) it must be 
put in the second form, or objective case : thus, I 
went with her to them from him : John gave this 
book to me, and said it was a present to both of us^ 
&c. — not with she, to they, from he, &c. There is 
a very general mistake, as if than and as had the 
same effect in changing the form of the pronoun : 
thus, I am older than her; she is wiser than him; 
we are not so rich as them ; but it does not follow 
that they are more happy than us — it should be, 
than she, than he, as they, than we. 

The learner should commit the prepositions to 
memory, or render them familiar by frequent inspec- 
tion. There is some diversity in their application ; 
for even such as are strictly synonymous, are not all 
(according to preponderating usage) interchangeable. 
In the following examples, the Jirst mode of ex- 
pression is best sanctioned by established usage: 

He found the greatest difficulty in speaking, or of 
speaking. His abhorrence of Popery — abhorrence 
to Popery. It is a change for the better — to the 
better. He was very different then from what he is 
now — to what he is now. I differ from you in opi- 
nion — I differ with you in opinion. There is no need 
of it — for it. This is no diminution of his greatness 
— to his greatness. It is derogatory from his autho- 



233 

rity — to his authority. It is no derogation of his 
honour — to his honour. It is consonant to our na- 
ture — with our nature. 

Such niceties of appropriation may not be wholly 
disregarded ; but hberty is better than slavish sub- 
jection to mere custom. 

It is of some importance that the grammatic dis- 
ciple should learn to disuse useless words and sylla- 
bles. Upon and on are synonymous; and as the 
prefix up is useless^ it should be discarded : thus^ He 
came on horseback — not upon horseback. Along, 
together, &c., are often uselessly employed before 
with : John went along with James— better, John 
went with James. The ship together with her cargo 
was burned — The ship with her cargo was burned 
— or. The ship and her cargo were burned. 

Wherever prepositions can be omitted without 
obscuring the meaning, composition is improved by 
the omission : thus. He went last Monday — is better 
than. He went on last Monday. The rain has been 
falling a long time — is better than. The rain has 
been falling for a long time. He could not forbear 
expressing his displeasure — is better than. He could 
not forbear /rom expressing his displeasure, &c. 

It is become a kind of rule, that whenever a pre- 
sent participle (i. e. a verb with ing affixed) has the 
before it, of should be placed after: thus, At the 
hearing of this intelligence — not. At the hearing this 
intelligence. But it would be better. to omit both 
the and of : thus, " If the cares of Hampden had 



234 

been directed to the unfolding and guiding his dis- 
positions." " Mallet, of the King's Bench, fell under 
the displeasure of the House of Lords for being privy 
to the preparing a petition." It would be better to 
omit the, (which is often as useless in composition 
as a mummy in a deliberative assembly,) and write. 
If the cares of Hampden had been directed to un- 
folding and guiding his disposition ; better still,— 
directed to unfold and guide his disposition. Mallet 
fell under displeasure — for being privy to preparing 
a petition ; still better, — for being concerned in pre- 
paring a petition. 

Such clumsy modes of expression might be easily 
avoided ; but the and of are equally useless in such 
connexions. A good general rule is, to omit every 
word not necessary to express the meaning of a sen- 
tence ; and to adopt such modes of construction as 
will enable the composer to express his meaning m 
the fewest words. Swerve from the path — is better 
than, Swerve out of the path — because, in the first 
sentence, one word (from) performs the office of 
two words (out of) in the last. 

There is always a want of dignity in terminating 
sentences with such insignificant words as preposi- 
tions : Whom will you present it to 9 He is a poet 
I am much pleased with — better, To whom will you 
present it? He is a poet with whom I am much 
pleased — or still better, I am much pleased with 
him as a poet. 



235 



DIRECTIONS CONCERNING ADJECTIVES. 

1. Ungrammatic speakers and writers are apt to 
use adjectives instead of adverbs: thus. He walks 
bad — for walks badly. He is miser able pooi' — for 
miserahly poor. He acts agreeable to his instruc- 
tions — for agreeably. He speaks his mind very free 
^—freely, John went direct to the city — directly, 
James is steady employed — steadily employed. 

The rule is^ to add ly to the adjective to express 
the manner of any action or quality : thus, He sleeps 
soundly — not He sleeps sound. They wait patiently 
— ruot patient. They stand peaceably (contr. of 
Xpeaceablely) — not peaceable. He spoke forcibly 
(contr. of 1^ forcihlely) — not forcible. He is evi- 
dently prejudiced— not evident. 

There is an awkwardness in the double affix ly^ 
which is better avoided : He lived soberly and ^o^- 
lily — better piously. He acted friendlily towards 
me — better Mndly, 

2. Double comparatives and superlatives should 
not be employed ; such as, more stronger, more su- 
perior, most strongest, &c. More is equivalent to 
the affix er, and most to est; when, therefore, they 
are united there is manifest tautology. 

3. Such adjectives as the following do not admit 
of comparative or superlative words and affixes, viz. 
Chief, Extreme, Perfect, Right, Universal, &c. 

It is evidently illogical to say chief est, extremest, 



236 

more perfect, most perfect , more right^ most or more 
universal. 

More and Most, or the affixes er and est, may be 

employed at pleasure ; but the general practice is to 

use the form which is most agreeable to the ear: 

thus^ more friendly, most friendly , in preference to — 

friendlier, friendliest. 

4. According to the grammatists the comparative 
should be employed in reference to two objects : 
thus, John and James are of the same age, but 
James is the stronger of the two — not strongest. 
This rule, however, is not uniformly observed even 
by grammatic speakers, and it has some appearance 
of grammatic pedantry. There is, however, an evi- 
dent propriety in using only the superlative in refer- 
ence to three or more objects ; Of the three brothers 
Robert is most learned. 

The following expressions are faulty : Of all the 
nations of Europe our own has fewer imperfections 
— fewest. The representative form of government is 
the best of any ; better thus : Of all forms of govern- 
ment the representative form is the best ; or, the 
representative is the best of all the different forms of 
government ; or simply, (certainly the best mode 
of expression,) the representative is the best form 
of government. The simplest and shortest mode of 
expression is the best of any : the two last words are 
wholly expletive. 



235. 



REMARKS ON COMPOSITIOx^^ 

The reader must be aware that good composition 
and good grammar are not identical ; that tlie last 
is, at best, only an accomplishment; and that the 
first is of the highest importance. There are two 
very different senses in which composition maybe 
pronounced good, according as it is viewed in refer- 
ence to logic or to rhetoric, i. e. as tried by seiise or 
by taste. Concerning the last there is no wisdom in 
disputing ; for it is as arbitrary as fashion. Persons, 
indeed, who wish to have an agreeable style, will not 
wholly disregard it; and they may read with advan- 
tage the writings of Blair and other rhetoricians. 
All who wish to have smooth diction will avoid, as 
much as possible, harsh words and combinations of 
words in sentences: all who value elegance of com- 
position will avoid low words, phrases, and meta- 
phors. Persons of rhetorical habitudes delight in 
eulogistic and dyslogistic phraseology ; those of a 
logical determination prefer dyslogistic expression. 
It is believed that such persons, however different 
from one another, may consult, with some advan- 
tage, a preceding part of this Introduction. All we 
intend here, is to present a few remarks on composi- 
tion, considered simply as a medium of meaning, or 
of mental intercommunication, i. e. as an interpreter 
of the understanding, without any reference to tastCy 
considered as a distinct entity from sense. 



238 

Swift, we believe, defines good composition — 
" Right words in right places." This, with due 
allowance for the vagueness of epigrammatic brevity, 
is a tolerable approximation to a good definition ; 
and it indicates two important particulars necessary 
to be kept in view, especially by young persons, viz. 
judicious choice and skilful arrangement of words. 
The best preparation for such judicious choice and 
skilful arrangement, is intimate acquaintance with 
etymology and literature. -i 

The choice of words has been so much rrfen'ed to 
in the present work, that specific remarks or di- 
rections concerning it seem unnecessary. The pro* 
perties essential to a perfect sentence, as defined by 
Blair, are, " Perspicuity, Unity, Strength, Harmony." 
The last property is excluded from our present con- 
sideration. A judicious composer will not disregard 
the ear ; but the understanding is the primary ob- 
ject ; and he will never sacrifice sense to sound or 
meaning to euphony. 

Perspicuity, according to the above rhetorician, is 
resolvable into purity ^ propriety^ and precision. His 
remarks on purity and propriety are too vague to 
deserve transcription. " Precision [he writes] signi- 
fies retrenching all superfluities, and pruning the 
expression in such a manner as to exhibit neither 
more nor less than an exact copy of his idea who 
use& it." This does not seem essentially different 
from his account of strength in composition. " The 
first rule which we shall give for promoting the 



239 

strength of a sentence is, to take from it all redun- 
dant words." " As sentences should be divested of 
superfluous words, so, also, should they appear with- 
out superfluous members." Much that he advances 
on strength belongs to harmony. Two or three of 
his remarks on Unity seem worthy of transcription. 
^^ Unity is . an indispensable property. The very 
nature of a sentence implies one proposition to be 
expressed. It may consist indeed of parts; but these 
parts must be so intimately knit together as to make 
the impression upon the mind of one object, not of 
many. To preserve this, we must observe, that 
during the course of the sentence the scene should 
be changed as little as possible. There is generally, 
in every sentence, some person or thing which is the 
governing word. This should be continued so, if 
possible, from the beginning to the end. Should a 
man express himself in this manner: After we came 
to anchor, they put me on shore, where I was sa- 
luted by all my friends, who received me with the 
greatest kindness. Here, though the objects are 
suflficiently connected, yet, by shifting so oftai the 
person-^M;e, they, I, who-^tho, sense is nearly lost. 
The sentence is restored to its proper unity by the 
following construction: Having come to anchor I 
was put on shore, where I was saluted by all my 
friends, and received by them with the greatest kind- 
ness. Another rule is, never to crowd into one sen- 
tence things which have so little connexion that 
they might be divided into two or more sentences. 



240 

The following is an instance of faulty composition: 
' Their march was through an uncultivated country, 
whose savage inhabitants fared hardly, having no 
other riches than a breed of lean sheep, whose flesh 
was rank and unsavory, by reason of their continual 
feeding upon sea-flsh.' Here the scene is repeatedly 
changed. The march of the Greeks, the description 
of the inhabitants, through whose country they pas- 
sed, the account of their sheep, and the reason of 
their sheep being disagreeable food, make a jumble 
of objects slightly related to each other, which the 
reader cannot, without difficulty, comprehend under 
one view." 

Definiteiiess seems the single word most expres- 
sive of our notion of good composition ; for indefi- 
niteness is the most predominant fault, and that 
which, more than any other, defeats the professed 
purpose of language. The great object of every 
composer should be, to express his meaning so dis- 
tinctly as to render doubts concerning it impossible. 
Rules never can create excellence, but they may 
afford considerable assistance in acquiring mastery in 
an art ; and for the benefit of young composers we 
venture a few directions. 

1. Endeavour to express your meaning in as 
few words as possible. 

. The shortest is (all other things being equal) the 
best mode of expression. Many a bad sentence is 
rendered a good one merely by throwing away useless 



241 

expletives or superfluous words. Such terms as ver^ 
hality^ verbiage, verbosity, wordiness, indicate the 
general sentiment concerning the present question, 
and admonish the composer that his wards should be 
few and well ordered. He will find this the surest 
guide — the best assistant in composing well ; whilst 
it tends^ more than any other rule^ to relieve him 
from perplexity, and to render his task easy. " Fee- 
ble writers employ a multitude of words to make 
themselves understood, as they think, more dis- 
tinctly; and they only confound the reader." "The 
first rule which we shall give for promoting the 
strength [substitute definiteness~\ of a sentence is, to 
take from it all redundant words. Whatever can be 
easily supplied in the mind is better omitted in the 
expression. It is certainly one of the most useful 
exercises of correction, in reviewing what we have 
written, to contract that round-about mode of expres- 
sion, and to cut off those useless excrescences which 
are usually found in a first draught." =^ "As sen- 
tences should be divested of superfluous words, they 
should also appear without superfluous members. 
In opposition to this is the fault so frequently met 

* Blair. The author adds, very rhetorically, " But we must 
be careful not to run into the opposite extreme of pruning so 
closely as to give a hardness and dryness to the style. Some 
leaves must he left to shelter and adorn the fruit"! // It is right, 
perhaps, to confess, that in quoting from this author we have 
taken the liberty of contracting some round-about modes of ex- 
pression. 

R 



242 

with, of the last member of a period being no other 
than the repetition of the former in a different dress. 
For example, speaking of beauty, ' The very first 
discovery of it,' says Mr. Addison, ^ strikes the mind 
with inward joy, and spreads delight through all its 
faculties/ In this instance scarcely any thing is 
added by the second member of the sentence to 
what was already expressed in the first." 

The composition of Addison was long considered 
the " model of the middle style;" but it is remark- 
ably surcharged with redundant words : and young 
composers will find it a very improving exercise to 
practise condensation on the loose papers of the 
Spectator, " by contracting round-about modes of 
expression and cutting off useless excrescences." Let 
them try how many superfluous words can be dis- 
carded ; or with what brevity of expression the same 
meaning may be conveyed. Let them try how 
much better than Addison they can express a mean- 
ing or construct a sentence. This emulous mode of 
studying the most excellent compositions is far more 
conducive to improvement than imitation, which 
tends more to enslave and enfeeble the imitator than 
to produce original excellence. It should be a rule 
never to use a word, or mode of expression, merely 
because it has been employed. Bad sentences escape 
from the best writers ; and, therefore, instead of re- 
lying on doubtful authorities, or following the guid- 
ance of precedents, young composers should endea- 
vour to erect a standard for themselves by acquiring 



243 

a perfect knowledge of language, i. e. by intimate 
acquaintance with etymology and literature. Many 
of the worst modes of expression are imitated faults ; 
and when called in question, persons using them can 
give no better reason than that they have seen or 
heard them. 

2. Avoid as much as possible insignificant 

WORDS. 

Of all the parts of speech, those commonly called 
articles, conjunctions, prepositions, and adverbs, are 
the least significant. It is a good general rule, 
therefore, to omit them whenever the omission does 
not mar the meaning of composition, or do violence 
to established usage ; and to adopt such modes of 
expression as render them least necessary. 

The same remark applies to pronouns, especially 
those of the third person, and the relatives and de- 
monstratives. When these are much employed, the 
usual consequence is indefiniteness ; for as there are, 
generally, several preceding entities, the reader has 
to guess which of them is referred to by it, they, 
who, which, &c., when such words are frequently 
interposed. And though skilful disposition or collo- 
cation will tend greatly to secure distinctness, the 
best general rule is to adopt such modes of construc- 
tion as render fewest of those words necessary which 
have any tendency to throw confusion or obscurity 
over composition. 

r2 



244 



3. Guard against tautology in employing 
synonymous words. 

This is a very common fault. Many writers sup- 
pose that they are enriching their composition with 
additional thoughts^ when they are only encumbering 
it with synonymous terms ; * or that they are ex- 
pressing their meaning more fully and forcibly when 
they are only muffling it in verbality. This is so 
much the general practice — the established usage in 
composition, that young composers should rather 
lean to the opposite extreme ; and the structure of 
language — all the usual modes of expression are so 
essentially tautologic and verbose, that there is very 
little danger of pruning verbality too unsparingly, 
and not leaving sufficient foliage (as advised by Dr. 
Blair) to shelter and adorn the fruit. 

* " The great source of a loose style," writes Dr. Blair, " in 
opposition to precision, is the inaccurate and unhappy use of 
those words called synonymous." Very true j but he adds, 
" Scarcely, in any language, are there two words which express 
precisely the same idea." This notion is the very source of that 
loose style which he blames j for persons do not employ syno- 
nymes, because they suppose them to express precisely the same 
idea, but because they suppose them not to express precisely the 
same idea. So far from the Doctor's notion being correct, the 
converse of it holds good, viz., that there is hardly a single idea 
which has not several names. 



245 



4. Adopt that arrangement of words which 
presents your meaning most distinctly. 

The following remark of Dr. Blair is judicious : 
*' From the nature of our language, a leading rule in 
the arrangement of our sentences is, that the words 
or members most nearly related, should be placed as 
near to each other as possible, so as to make their 
mutual relation clearly appear. This rule is too 
frequently neglected even by good writers. A few 
instances will show both its importance and its ap- 
plication." 

Some of these instances we will, for the sake of 
brevity, present in our own manner : " By great- 
ness," says Mr. Addison, " I do not only mean the 
hulk of any single object, but the largeness of a 
whole view." Better thus: I mean by greatness, 
not merely the magnitude of any single object, but 
that of a whole view. " Are these designs," says 
Lord Bolingbroke, ^^ which any man who is born a 
Briton, in any circumstances, in any situation, ought 
to be ashamed or afraid to avow?" Better thus: 
Should any Briton ever be ashamed or afraid to avow 
these designs : or. Are not these designs worthy the 
fearless avowal of every Briton ? " It is folly to pre- 
tend [Sherlock's Sermons] to arm ourselves against 
the accidents of life by heaping up treasures, which 
nothing can protect us against but the good provi- 
dence of our Heavenly Father." — It is folly to en- 
deavour, by heaping up riches, to arm ourselves 



246 

against the accidents of life ; for nothing can protect 
us against them but the good providence of our 
Heavenly Father. — The reader may compare the 
above w^ith Blair's Lectures. 

The following quotations from the History of the 
Commonwealth (which happens to be lying before 
us at the moment) are remarkable instances of faulty 
composition by a professed author of some reputation 
and much practice. 

^' The tide of fortune had set so strongly in favour 
of the king, immediately after the surrender of Bris- 
tol, as would infallibly have reduced hearts less de- 
voted and minds less energetic, than those of many 
who guided the resistance against him, to despair."— 
The tide of fortune, which set so strongly in favour 
of the king, immediately after the surrender of Bris- 
tol, would infallibly have reduced to despair, hearts 
less devoted and minds leiss energetic than those 
which guided the resistance against him. ^^ This 
liady for a series of years, had the effect of giving an 
appearance of ^eace and tranquillity to Ireland, 
which had been almost without example." Perhapg 
all this means nothing more than. This gave to Ire- 
land, for a series of years, an unusual appearance of 
tranquillity. " In unison with these proceedings, on 
the part of those who supported the public cause and 
commensurate with the urgency of the case, were 
the preparations made for the protection of the me- 
tropolis." — The preparations made for the protection 
of the metropolis, were in unison with these pro- 



247 

ceedings, and commensurate with the urgency of the 
case. The sentence is still very indifferent : " on 
the part of those who supported the public cause," 
is mere surplus. 

These examples furnish abundant evidence that 
there is a close connexion between multiplicity of 
words and faulty arrangement. We have said, that 
many a bad sentence is rendered a good one, simply 
by throwing away useless words. In the following 
instances the useless parts are marked by italics. 

" The king's march against Gloucester was the 
first decisive evidence that was afforded of the 
change in public affairs." " The defence of the city 
was conducted with great courage and resolution^ 
'^ The events announced w ere far from being such 
as he wished them to prove^' — " which are requisite 
to the forming a great warlike leader," — " devoted 
himself to the forwardiw^ the cause of his sovereign ;" 
still better, devoted himself to promote the cause of 
his sovereign ; better still, he devoted himself to the 
cause of his sovereign ; for ^^ whatever can be easily 
supplied in the mind is better omitted in the sen- 
tence." The judicious use of ellipsis tends rather to 
produce explicitness than obscurity, whilst it effects 
brevity. We ought to put others to as little trouble 
as possible in apprehending our meaning; hence, the 
importance of endeavouring to present it to them 
both distinctly and concisely. The two grand qua- 
lities, therefore, of good composition, are definiteness 
and conciseness, or perspicuity and brevity. These 



248 

excellencies rest not on taste, but on sense; and 
every sensible man may, if he chooses, possess 
them. 

A few remarks concerning metaphor may not be 
wholly without utility. A great part of language is, 
of necessity, metaphoric, and therefore we cannot 
reasonably interdict figurative expression. Whether 
a better system of mental intercommunication might 
not be invented is a fair question for consideration ; but 
that which we now employ is essentially metaphoric; 
and perhaps more logical error, or metaphysical ab- 
surdity, results from mistaking figurative for literal 
phraseology, than from the injudicious use of me- 
taphors. All, therefore, that can be reasonably in- 
sisted on, is a judicious use of figurative language ; 
and the present rhetorical mania for metaphor ren- 
ders such discretion peculiarly necessary.* 

The following suggestions, perhaps, deserve the 
attention of young composers : 

Never employ metaphor for the sake of meta- 
phor, i. e. never adopt a figurative except when it 
evidently expresses your meaning more effectually 
than a literal mode of expression. The converse of 

* Probably the metaphoric mania is at the height, and that a 
reaction will soon commence in favour of literal simplicity -, such 
as that which followed the figurative era of Jeremy Taylor. No 
rage lasts long. The rhetorical taste of a people is ever vibrating 
from one extreme to another. Though the imagination predomi- 
nates over the understanding, the cultivated mind is at last sur- 
feited with imagery. 



249 

this seems the rule adopted by many fashionable 
litterateurs. They appear never ta employ plain 
unmetaphoric diction^ but when they cannot conve- 
niently avoid it: they are always making an effort 
to produce effect, or to display their genius: their 
main object is to surprise or astonish by the novelty 
and brilliancy of their imagery: in plainer terms, 
their chief intention is to show how clever they are 
at getting up metaphors. Such being the childish 
purpose (for there is as much dignity or utility in 
blowing bubbles) of authors and orators, it is not 
wonderful that literature should exhibit wasteful 
profusion of idle and absurd figurative language. 
Take the following specimens from a work now be- 
fore us : " Too agitated to still down his bitter and 
perturbed spirit to the tranquil pursuit of his art, 
the stingings of his lacerated and disappointed feel- 
ings found vent in a medium more adapted to give 
a rapid and ready expression to powerful emotion." 
" The answer of the poet, whose own feelings of 
misery come at once upon the canvas, is the very 
epic of melancholy discontentment — a discontent- 
ment engendered by the finest sensibility, blasted in 
its hopes and its efforts for ameliorating human suf- 
ferings and amending human institutions." " But 
that fatal pre-eminence which the lowly worship 
and the envious malign, gives only a finer faculty for 
suffering ; and while it opens the sources of petty 
vexations and exalts the poignancy of the greater 
moral afflictions, it places its gifted victim at an im- 



250 

measurable distance from the heartless enjoyments 
and trifling pleasures of more ordinary humanity." 
The Life and Times of Salvator Rosa. 

These are eloquent specimens of the metaphoric 
prolification of the present literature, whose character- 
istic peculiarities are ambitious display and striking 
effect, by dramatic artifice and theatric boldness, in 
addressing the imagination and the passions, or in 
working on those fashionable entities sentimentality 
and sensibility . 

When the author or the orator is actuated by any 
rhetorical rage for metaphors, it is not wonderful 
that they should be strangely obtruded and jumbled 
and mangled and misapplied ; or, that they should 
frequently answer any purpose save that of being a 
distinct medium of intercommunication between one 
understanding and another. Hence we find a vene- 
rable sentimentalist writing history in the following 
manner : " The tide of fortune had set so strongly 
in favour of the king immediately after the sur- 
render of Bristol, as would infallibly have reduced 
hearts less devoted and minds less energetic than 
those of many who guided the resistance against 
him, to despair." And a celebrated professor of rhe- 
toric in delivering lectures, admonishing his disciples 
not to prune their composition too much ; for that 
some leaves should he left to shelter and adorn the 
Jruit, It would be easy to collect in a short space of 
time a thousand such objectionable examples from 
the most eloquent and tasteful productions of the 



251 

recent and current literature ; but the young com- 
poser should view them not as patterns of excellence 
or models for imitation, but as beacons to warn him 
of the danger of venturing eagerly, or daringly, 
among metaphors on which so many make ship- 
wreck of reason and common sense. When the 
imagination is not the servant but the tyrant of the 
understanding ; or (to change the allusion) when the 
former is suffered and encouraged to run away with 
the latter, there is some degree of mental derange- 
ment or madness. There may, indeed, be consi- 
derable rhetorical method in it ; but, when examining 
some of the finest rhetorical specimens, we cannot 
help suspecting the authors ^o have prostrated their 
understanding at the shrine of fancy ; or, in the 
common but significant phrase, to have taken leave 
of their senses. 

The great difficulty in this figurative era of litera- 
ture is to be sufficiently literal, that the understand- 
ing may enjoy some ^composure from the agitations 
of sensation ; at least the author finds it so : and in 
looking back on his compositions from time to time, 
he is mortified to perceive so much of a symbolic 
character. To every one not wholly destitute of 
what is commonly called genius, it is a good safe 
rule to employ metaphor as little as possible. 



252 



ORTHOGRAPHY OR RIGHT SPELLING. 

The anomalousness of English spelling has long 
been a subject of general complaint ; and, perhaps, 
the evil is now too inveterate to be remedied ; or 
rather, it is probable, that those w^ho could remedy 
the evil will not make the attempt. But we are 
unwilling to despair of improvement ; and, with due 
deference, will offer some suggestions on the subject 
after presenting the rules of our present orthography. 

RULE I. 

Monosyllables ending with f, I, or s, preceded by 
a single vowel, double the final consonant ; as, staff, 
mill, pass, &c. The only exceptions are of, if, as, 
is, has, was, yes, his, this, has. 

The only monosyllables ending with any other 
consonants which double the last letter are, add, 
butt, egg, odd, err, inn, and buzz. 

The reduplication of f, 1, and s, is of (compara- 
tively) recent adoption ; and it was, probably, in- 
tended to indicate distinctions in pronunciation which 
do not now exist : sta/, mil, &c, would certainly be 
simpler than staff, mill, &c. ; and something is gained 
by discarding useless letters : but the above rule is 
sufficiently distinct and is soon learned. 

RULE II. 

Words ending with y preceded by a consonant, 



253 

form the plurals of nouns, the persons of verbs, by 
changing y into i : and when an additional syllable 
is assumed, y is changed into i ; as spy, spies ; I 
carry, thou carriesty he carrieth or carries ; carried, 
carrier; happy, happier, happiest, happily, happi- 
ness. 

The y is retained before ing, that i may not be 
doubled ; as, carry, carrying ; hurry ^ hurrying, &c. 

But y preceded by a vowel in such instances as 
the above, is not changed ; hoy, hoys ; I cloy, he 
cloys, cloyed, &c. ; except in lay, pay, and say ; 
from which are formed laid, paid, and said. 

The above is a bad rule, for, instead of answering 
any useful purpose, it renders spelling difficult. The 
y should either remain unchanged when it has been 
adopted, or it should be banished as superfluous. 
Why should we write carrier, happier, accompani- 
ment, rather than carry er, happy er, accompanyment P 

RULE III. 

Words ending with a single consonant preceded 
by a single vowel, and with the accent on the last 
syllable, double the consonant when another syllable 
is added beginning with a vowel ; as, to ahet, abet- 
ting, an ahettor ; to hegin, a heginner ; wit, witty ; 
thin, thinnish. Sec, 

But if a diphthong precede or the accent be on the 
preceding syllable, the consonant is not doubled ; as, 
to toil, toiling ; to offer an offering ; maid, maiden. 
. This rule is sufficiently distinct ; but the following 



254 

examples are at variance with it : revel, revelling ; 
jewel, jeweller ; counsel, counsellor ; travel, travel* 
ler ; bigot, higotted ; worship, worshipped, worship- 
per. Such anomalies should be proscribed. 

RULE IV. 

When able, ible, ing, ish, are added to a word 
ending in e, it is omitted in the spelling : as, blame, 
blamable, blaming ; cure, curable, curing ; sense, 
sensible ; place, placing ; lodge, lodging ; slave, 
slavish ; prude, prudish, &c. : not blameable, blame- 
ing, lodgeing, slaveish, &c. : but when the final e is 
immediately preceded by g and c soft, it is retained 
in connexion with able and ible : as, change, change- 
able; peace, peaceable ; service, serviceable ; charge, 
chargeable; not changable, peacable, servicable, 
chargahle. 

This is such a perplexing rule to learners and per- 
sons who have little opportunity of learning, that the 
converse of it would be more sensible, viz. that no 
letter be ever dropped or omitted. 

RULE V. 

Words terminating in double 1, drop one 1 when 
they are taken into composition : as, fully, fulness, 
fulfil, handful, dunghil, withal, also, chilblain, foretel, 
always, welcome, &c. : not fullly, fullness, fuljfill, 
handfull, dunghill, withall, allso, chillblain, foretell, 
allways, wellcome, &c. 

The reason of dropping an 1 seems to have been 



255 

the crowded appearance of such words as fullly, 
shillless, &c. Having begun to exclude the super- 
fluous 1 in such cases, the exclusion was extended or 
rendered absolute ; whilst double f and double s were 
suffered to remain : as stiffly, stiffness, successful, 
carelessness : not stijiy, stifness^ succesfuly careles- 
nass, &c. 

The usual affixes in connexion with which the 
superfluous 1 is dropped, are ly, less, full, ness : with 
such affixes as er, est, eth, s, ing, age, &c., it remains: 
as, till, tilling, tillage, tiller, &c. 

The above are all the rules that the present state 
of English orthography seems to admit of: there are, 
indeed, eleven or twelve rules usually given in sys- 
tems of grammar, but one half of them are repetitions, 
of the other. 

It would be a great improvement if the following 
principles were adopted : 

1. That all superfluous letters be discarded: as in 
staff, full, grass ; which might be spelled stqf, ful, 
gras : and in have, serve, swerve, &c. ; which might 
be spelled hav, serv, swerv, &c.: and in covetous, 
candour, &c.; which might be covetos, candor; sense, 
sens; immense, immens. 

The only good reason for double s would be its 
having uniformly a different pronunciation from single 
s ; but the latter has often the sharp or hissing sound 
as well as the former. The proper office of final e 
is to render the preceding vowel long, as in mate, or 
to render g and c soft, as in charge, face^ &c. 



256 

, 2. Every letter should remain unchanged in the 
same word : as carry, carryer ; accompany, accom- 
pany ment ; lay, layed ; pay, payed ; day, dayly, 
&c. : not earner, accompaniment, laid, paid, daily. 

All such instances as the following properly come 
under the above rule : high, hight (not height) ; 
nigh, nighhour; whole, wholely (not wholly) ; con- 
nect, connection (not connexion). 

The reason of the above rule is obvious : it renders 
spelling easy, and it indicates the derivation and 
meaning of words. 

3. No letter should be dropped : as blame, blame- 
able; place, placeing; lodge, lodgeing ; ^udge, judge- 
ment ; abridge, abridgement ; acknowledge, acknow- 
ledgement: not blamable, placing, lodging, judgment, 
abridgment, acknowledgment : due, duely ; true, 
truely — not duly, truly, &c. &c. 

The reason of this rule is also obvious : it would 
prevent much perplexity. 

4. No letter should be reduplicated except for the 
purpose of indicating the pronunciation: as abet, 
abettor; hat, hatter; distil, distilling. Revelling, 
counsellor, bigotted, worshipper, &c., as before no- 
ticed, are contrary to rule. 

5. All duplicate, triplicate, or diversified forms of 
spelling the same word, should be reduced to that 
one form which is most agreeable to analogy, and 
which best indicates etymology and meaning: as 
show, shew ; strow, strew ; author, authour ; labor, 
labour; inquire, enquire; negotiate, negociate; ex- 



257 

pense, expence ; connection, connexion ; allege, al- 
ledge ; appretiate, appreciate ; martial, marshal. 

The first of these forms (i.e. show, labor, inquire, 
Sec.) is evidently to be preferred ; and we have ven- 
tured to adopt it in the Dictionary. The other 
improvements suggested must obtain the suffrage of 
the literary public, or of its influential members, 
before a lexicographer can prudently adopt them. 
The first rule proposed for adoption seems the only 
one likely to encounter much objection ; and but for 
double 1 we would not have proposed it: but leaving 
orthography as it is, as to f, 1, s, we may either ad- 
here to Rule 3, — though such words as fullly^ skill- 
less, would have a crowded appearance, — or we may 
follow the old rule, viz. Words terminating in double 
1 drop one 1 when they are compounded with other 
words. The sole object of the author is simplicity, 
i. e. utility. Let English spelling be made easy — 
let it be divested of unnecessary difficulty — and he 
cares not how the improvement is effected. 

Some of the most objectionable peculiarities of our 
present orthography are evidently adopted from the 
French, though our system of pronunciation is very 
different from theirs : as enquire for inquire, candour 
for candor. Custom is not yet so fixed as to prevent 
us from adopting the Latin spelling of such words ; 
but perhaps the French ou is now immovably esta- 
blished in many instances; such as court, mould, 
wound, covetous. All that can be safely recommended 
with such instances is, to make them conform as 



258 

much as possible to the analogy of English pronun- 
ciation, as in sound, hour. One of the greatest evils 
we have to complain of in the present connexion, is 
that of conflicting contrariety between orthography 
and orthoepy, which should be mutually adapted, 
and not opposed to one another. There is a whim- 
sical combination of le and re, instead of el and er, 
which might be yet rectified without much violence 
to established usage : as theatre, bundle, metre, spin- 
dle, &c. — instead of theater^ hundel, meter, spindeL 
The latter form answers to the pronunciation ; and 
final e should be appropriated as much as possible 
to such words as mate, charge, face, &c., in which k 
indicates that g and c are soft, and that the preceding 
vowel is long. 



THE ORTHOEPY, OR RIGHT PRONUNCIATION OF 
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 

Here there is as much cause for complaint as 
concerning orthography; for custom is neither fixed 
nor uniform, but exceedingly various and anomalous; 
so that Dr. Watts (if we remember correctly) pro- 
posed, as a rule of English spelling and pronuncia- 
tion, that the one should be as unlike the other as 
possible. 

It is to be regretted that so much having been 
done of late years to fix and indicate the mode of 
pronouncing, more has not been done to render it 
simple and uniform. Much praise, indeed, is due 



259 

to Mr. Walker, who was evidently capable of much 
higher departments in language than Orthoepy and 
elocution ; but, as he frankly confesses, he was afraid 
to attempt all that he considered necessary ; and 
in general* contented himself with ascertaining and 
exhibiting the fresent^ 'polite usage. Perhaps little 
more could be accomplished ; and in this he was re- 
markably successful ; so that his Dictionary is justly 
regarded as the standard of English pronunciation. 
We have hardly ever departed from that standard, 
except in adopting a simpler notation : for, as in one 
respect, Mr. Walker attempted too little, so in an- 
other respect he performed too much ; for it cannot 
surely be necessary to mark the sound of every word 
in the English language : it must be quite sufficient 
to mark the words in which pronunciation is likely 
to err. In the following Dictionary, therefore, those 
words only are marked by a different spelling, which 
deviate in any respect from the analogy of the lan- 
guage: the pronunciation of all the rest is considered 
as sufficiently indicated by the accent, with the as- 
sistance, occasionally, of the following marks " and ", 
the first of which denotes that a vowel is long — the 
second, that it is short : as, contem plate, alb. The 
reader will please, also, to attend to the following 
particulars respecting the Dictionary : 

1. The accent is to be understood a§ falling on 
the letter immediately preceding the mark or sign : 
as, Ac'cent, n. Accen't, v. a. ; FaVor, Endeavor. 

2. When the letter immediately preceding the ac- 

s2 



260 

centual mark is a vowel, it is long ; but if a conso* 
nant immediately precede the mark, the preceding 
vowel is short : thus. Favor, Fab'ric, which is equi* 
valent to Favor, Fabric. 

3. Final e renders the preceding vowel long, ex- 
cept when it is followed by a double consonant : as, 
Mate, Mete, Mite, Mote, Mute, Na'ture, Remo'te, 
&c., pronounced as if marked. Mate, Mete, Mite, 
Mote, Mute, Na ture, Remo'te. 

But when two or more consonants come between 
the final e and the preceding vowel, it is short : as. 
Battle, Babble, Badge, &c., pronounced as if marked 
Battle, Babble, Badge. 

In such words as Intes'tine, Futile, &c., the 
vowel preceding the final e is made short by Mr. 
Walker ; but in the opinion of the author it is better 
to make all such instances conform to the rule ; and 
the long vowel sound is an improvement in all such 
connexions to the English language ; for it is, in ge- 
neral, both harsh to the ear and hard to the mouth, 
from having too few open and too many shut vowel 
sounds. 

4. When the accent is not placed on a vowel, and 
when it is not followed by a final e in the same 
syllable, the vowel is to be always considered short : 
as. Fatten, Hab'it, &c., pronounced as if marked 
Fatten, HaMt. 

5. In monosyllables terminating with all, a has 
the same sound as aw or au : as, All, Ball, Call, &c., 
pronounced Awl, Bawl, Caul. 



261 

In all cases, when the accent is placed before the 
Ij a is to be pronounced aw ; when the accent is put 
after 1^ a is to be pronounced short : as. Fa Ise, Malt, 
Falter ; Al'b, Altitude, Carumny, Callet ; pronounc- 
ed as if marked—^azx;/^, maivlt^fawlter; alb, altitude, 
&c. 

6. Silent letters are put in Italics : as, /Zbur, Ve- 
hement, Endeavour, Cau^^t, &c., pronounced Our, 
Veement, Endevur, Caut. 

7. The following diphthongs have uniformly the 
long sound of «, (except when one of the vowels is 
in the Italic character,) ay, ai, ei, ey: as. Maid, Pail, 
Say, Rein, They, &c., pronounced like Made, Pale, 
&c. 

But when one of the vowels is marked as silent, 
the other vowel is short : as, Pla^d, RazTlery, Moun- 
tain, &c., pronounced Plad\ Rallery, Mountin, 

When ei sounds like long e, as in ceil, ceiling, &c., 
it is indicated by a different spelling in the Dictio- 
nary. 

f »8. Au, aw, are to be uniformly considered as sound- 
ing the same as in Caul, Awl, except when the pro- 
nunciation of the words containing them is particu- 
larly indicated. 

But au before n is pronounced like a in far, and in 
the colloquial words cant and shctnt, except when a 
different sound is particularly indicated : thus, Aunt, 
Askaunce, Askaunt, Haunt, &c., are pronounced like 
f Ant, f Can't. 



262 

9. Ea, ee, are pronounced like e long, except when 
one of the letters is in the Italian character : as, An- 
nea 1, Peel, Fear, Feed. 

The exceptions, which are numerous, are aH 
marked : as. Bread', Head', E«rl, pronounced bred, 
hed, Erl. 

10. Ew, eu, ue, are always pronounced like u long, 
except when a difference is particularly indicated : as. 
Few, Feud, Due. But after r, ue, ew, are generally 
pronounced like oo: as, True, Screw, pronounced 
troo^ scroo, 

11. Oa and oe always sound like long o, except 
when a difference is particularly indicated in the 
Dictionary ; as. Moat, Sloe, pronounced mote, slo, 

12. Oy, oi, have uniformly the compound sound 
of and i, except where a departure from rule is in- 
dicated : thus, Joy, Spoil, &c. 

13. Oo has uniformly the same sound as in Food, 
Soon, Fool, &c., except where a difference is parti- 
cularly intimated. 

14. Before 1, u has uniformly the sound of oo 
shortened, except when a difference is particularly 
indicated : as. Bull, Full, Handful : the sole differ- 
ence between full and fool is, that the diphthong in 
the last is longer than in the first. 

15. Ow, ou, uniformly sound as in Our, Now, ex- 
cept when w or u is marked as silent, in which case 
the pronunciation is the same as long o : thus, Flozi;> 
Sowrce, Moidd, pronounced, mold^ swccyjlo* When ow 



263 

terminates a word of more than one syllable^ it is 
uniformly pronounced like long o: as in Hollow, 
Sorrow, &c., pronounced hoHo^ soVro, 

16. In monosyllables y and ie are always pro- 
nounced like long i ; but in words of more than one 
syllable they are pronounced like short e : as, Try, 
Tries, pronounced tri, tries, &c. ; carry, carries, pro- 
nounced carry, carries, &c. 

17. Before nd, i has uniformly the long sound; 
as in Mind, Kind, &c.: but every other vowel before 
nd is uniformly short ; as in Hand, End, Fond, 
Fund. 

18. Before Ik, a sounds aw, and I is silent ; as ii> 
Balk, Talk, pronounced bawk, tawk. 

19. Before Im, a has the broad German sound, 
and I is silent ; as in Calm, Balm, &c. 

20. Before 11 and Id, o is always long: as. Poll, 
Old, Fold, Cold, &c., pronounced pole, old, fold, &c. 

21. Before single r, a has uniformly what is term- 
ed the broad German sound, except in unaccented 
syllables, where it has the common short sound : as. 
Far, Part, Partial ; Ram'part, &c. ; and before double 
r„ a has uniformly tte shoirt sound ; as ia Carry, 
Tarry, &c. 

22. Before a, o, u^ C is always pronounced like 
K ; but before e,, ^ y\ it isi pronounced like S : as. 
Card, Cord, Curd, pronounced kard, kord, kurd; 
Cement, City, Cynic, pronounced semeni, sitty, cin- 
nic. When c ends a word or syllable, it always sounds 
the same as k;, as, tnu'sic, flaccid, siccity, pronounced 



264 

mwsik^ flahsed, sihsity : k after c is now very pro- 
perly discarded, except in such words as Back, 
Pack : as, Music, Physic, &c., not Musick, Physick. 
It would be well to discontinue the k in every case, 
(i. e. in connexion with c,) or to substitute it for c ; 
which last letter is wholly superfluous in the English 
alphabet ; and if k and s were made to supersede 
this double sounding character, much inconvenience 
would be obviated. 

Ch has three sounds, viz. tsh^ as in Chair, Child, 
Chin, &c. ; sh, as in Chaise, Chagrin, Machine, &c.; 
h, as in Chaos, Character, Chorus, Anchor, Me- 
chanic, Epoch, &c. 

When the pronunciation is not particularly indi- 
cated in the Dictionary, ch is to be understood as 
having the first sound, i. e. tsh ; but after 1 and n, 
ch always sounds sh, as in Bench, Filch, &c. — pro- 
nounced bensh, Jilsh, 

When ci, ti, si, come before a, e, o, they are to be 
considered as sounding like sh, except when a dif- 
ferent pronunciation is indicated in the Dictionary ; 
as. Special, Occasion, Diction, Petition, Captious, 
&c. — pronounced speshal, okazhun, petishun, cap- 
shus: tioiis, cious, are always pronounced shits ; don, 
sion, Hon — shun ; but short, as if put shn. 

23. G, like C, has two sounds : before a, o, u, 1, 
r, or when terminating a syllable, it is hard ; as in 
Game, Go, Gun, Fig, Fag, &c. : before e, i, y, G is 
pronounced like J ; as in Gem, Genus, Gin, Gibe 
or Gybe, Gymnastic, Age, Eulogy, &c. : the excep- 



265 

tions, such as Get^ Geld^ &c., are indicated in the 
Dictionary. Such words as the following are not 
exceptions, because the g is properly the last letter 
of a syllable, and therefore has the hard sound, viz. 
Shaggy, Shagged, Ragged, Rugged, Dagger, Anger, 
Finger, &c. The intention in doubling the g in 
Shaggy, Beggar, &c., was to indicate the hard 
sound. 

When gn begins or terminates a word, g is silent; 
as Gnaw, Gnat, Condign, Malign, Feign, Deign, 
Sign — pronounced naiv, nat, condlne, maline^ fain^ 
dain, sine. The vowel preceding the silent g or gh 
is uniformly long ; as Impugn, Right, Blight, &c. 
— pronounced impime, rite, bllte. 

Except in Ghost, Ghast, and their derivatives^ 
(pronounced gost, gastj gh is to be considered as 
uniformly silent: the few instances in which it is 
pronounced f, as in Cough, &c. — and k, as in Lough 
— and g hard, as in Burgh, — are indicated in the 
Dictionary. 

24. When kn begins a word, k is silent ; as, Knab, 
Knack, Knee, Know, &c. — pronounced nab, nak, 
nee, no, 

25. When h is silent, it is marked in the Italic 
character. It is always sounded at the beginning of 
words, except in Heir, Heiress, Honest, Honesty, 
Honour, Honourable, Herb, Herbage, Hospital, 
Hostler, Hour, Humble, Humour, Humourous, 
Humoursome. It is always silent after r ; as in 
Rhetoric, Rhubarb, Myrrh. When the final letter. 



266 

and preceded by a vowel, it is always silent ; as in 
Ah ! Oh ! Sirrah ! When wh begins words, it is 
pronounced hoo; as in Whale, Wheel — pronounced 
hooale^ hooeel, in one syllable. 

In the Saxon vocabulary, such words are more 
properly spelled Hu or Hw, The modern spelling 
is a departure from a more reasonable usage than 
that which is now established. Spelling and pro- 
nunciation should, if possible, coincide. 

26. The affix or, our, is uniformly pronounced 
ur; as in Candor or Candour, Favor or Favour — 
pronounced candur^favur. The shut or short vowel 
sounds in unaccented syllables cannot be distinguish- 
ed as having any difference ; and therefore it seems 
unnecessary to mark er as if it were pronounced ur 
in such words as Lover, Mother, Father, &c. 

27. The affix some is uniformly pronounced sum; 
as in Handsome, Delightsome — pronounced hand- 
sum^ deli' ghtsum. This affix is spelled in Saxon, 
som, sam, sum; and it would be well to return to 
sum, or at least to discard the final e; for, as we 
have so frequently intimated, spelling and pronun- 
ciation should coincide. 

28. The affix ous is uniformly pronounced us; as 
in Covetous, Righteous — pronounced cuv'etus, righ- 
tyus: OILS (like our for or) is the French mode of 
expressing the Latin affix os, 

29. When w begins a word, it has the sound of 
oo ; as in Ware, Wet, Wile, &c. — pronounced ooare, 
ooety ooiky in one syllable : u before e, i, o, has the 



267 

same sound, except when a difference is indicated in 
the Dictionary; as. Languish, Banquet, Languor, 
Language ; pronounced langwish, or langoolsh, 
bankwef, langwur, langwage. 

SO. S has two sounds, the one sharp and hissing, 
as in us, this; the other precisely Hke z ; as in His, 
Was, As, &c. When the contrary is not indicated 
in the Dictionary, s is to be considered as having the 
sharp hissing sound of ss, as in Fuss, Kiss : double s 
has uniformly the sharp hissing sound. 

31. Th has two sounds ; the one as in Thin, &c.; 
the other as in Thine. When not particularly in- 
dicated, th is always to be considered as having the 
first sound ; but when followed by final e in the 
same syllable, th has uniformly the second sound ; 
as in Breathe, Writhe, &c. When Th is pronounced 
as t, the h is marked as silent; thus, TAyme, AstAma, 
pronounced time, ast'ma, 

32* F and Ph have the same sound : f has some- 
times the sound of v; but when this is not indicated, 
it is always to be considered as having its own pro- 
per sound : double f has uniformly the sound of f, 
or ph ; as in Off, Staff, &c. 

33. Before on and oils, i generally sounds like y, 
at the beginning of a word or syllable ; as in Minion, 
Million, Tedious, &c., pronounced minyun, milyun^ 
tedeyus, 

34. When final e comes after I and r, it is to be pro- 
nounced as if put before them -^ as in Fickle, Mingle, 
Theatre, Nitre, pronounced ^Me/, mingul, theater, 



268 

niter. This pronunciation is quite familiar to the 
French (from whom the mode of sjjelling and pro- 
nouncing such words was adopted) , and other foreign- 
ers must remember that final e is never pronounced 
as a distinct syllable in the English language. 

35. T is always silent between s and en or le ; as 
in Hasten, Listen, Castle, &c., pron. haysen, lissen, 
kassel, 

36. X has two sounds, viz. ks and gs : except 
when particularly marked, it is to be understood as 
haying the first sound. 

37. Qu has always the sound of koo. 

38. The verbal affix ed, is seldom pronounced as 
a distinct syllable except after d: as. Feared, Con- 
fessedj pron./earc?, confessd ; but in such words as 
branded, commanded, &c. it is a distinct syllable. 

The above (and they are sufficiently numerous) 
are all the particulars concerning pronunciation 
which seem to deserve notice as preparatory to the 
Dictionary. They have been numbered for the sake 
of reference, and to render them more distinct for 
the benefit of learners. 

The irregular character of English pronunciation 
(like that of English spelling) is too manifest to 
require any comment : whether it be more or less 
anomalous than that of other languages is a question 
of no importance ; but there is evidently much im- 
portance, i. e. utility, in rendering it as simple and 
regular as possible. Influential speakers (who have 
always least reason to dread petty criticism) should 



269 

set the example of bringing English pronunciation 
to English spelling. The latter might (as already 
intimated) be materially reformed without much 
trouble : and the great desideratum is coincidence 
between the one and the other. It is in general, 
however, safer to make the pronunciation conform to 
the spelling, than to make the spelling conform to 
the pronunciation : and to make the one correspond 
to the other ought evidently to be a rule with every 
sensible speaker and v^riter. 

In all those words which are differently pro- 
nounced by respectable speakers, that mode is wor- 
thy of preference which is most agreeable to analogy 
and- most conformable to orthography; as, Yea, 
pron. ye and yay ; Wound, pron. like found and 
woond : Break, pron. hreek and hrahe ; Oblige, 
pron. oblige and ohleege ; Knowledge, pron. noledge 
and nolledge, &c. &c. The first of these modes of 
pronunciation is evidently that which should be 
universally adopted. 

Influential speakers should endeavour to bring the 
general practice to analogy in all cases. It is un- 
worthy of persons who have any respect for utility, 
to follow the blind guidance of mere custom, or to 
comply with the anomalous caprices of fashion. 
The only chance for simplicity, uniformity, and 
immutable stability to a living language, is to follow 
the guidance of reason. 

When learned or foreign words are adopted, they 
should be made to conform to the English idiom or 



270 

manner of spelling and pronouncing. This plain 
sensible rule is surely better than pedantry or affec- 
tation : and in this we might profit by the example 
of the French, in imitating whose language we have 
given such a motley character to our own. 



DIRECTIONS TO THE NATIVES OF SCOTLAND IN 
PRONOUNCING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 

Of course the proper direction to persons who 
wish to acquire the pronunciation of any language, 
is to put themselves under the instruction of compe- 
tent teachers ; for sounds cannot be communicated 
by written rules or descriptions. All we intend, 
therefore, is to give such assistance as writing can 
supply. 

Mr. Walker, who treats of every subject connected 
with English pronunciation in a philosophic manner, 
remarks — " That pronunciation which distinguishes 
the inhabitants of Scotland, may be divided into the 
quantity, quality, and accentuation of the vowels." 
The author is less happy in these distinctions than 
usual, owing, perhaps, to his imperfect acquaintance 
with the Scottish dialect. Had he said inflection^ 
quality of the vowel sounds, and accentuation, he 
would have presented his meaning more distinctly. 
He has treated of inflection in a very satisfactory 
manner ; showing that one of the Scottish peculiari- 



271 

ties is the predominant rising slide or turn of the 
voice as if putting a question ; and proposes, very 
rationally, that the Scotch should practise as much 
as possible on the falling, and the Irish (whose pe- 
culiarity is directly opposite) on the rising inflection, 
to acquire that equal mixture or mean proportion of 
both, which distinguishes the English speaker. 

But, as he justly remarks, there is a tone of voice 
in the Scottish peculiarity besides mere inflection : 
and it is this, more than any thing else, which has 
been commonly but indistinctly termed the Scotch 
accent. Every language has a tone, tune, or recita- 
tive, peculiar to itself (which tone is vulgarly called 
brogue when grafted on another language) : it is the 
same with dialects. The English has comparatively 
little of recitative ; or it is, at least, quick time and 
short measure ; it is pronounced " trippingly on the 
tongue :" the Scottish dialect has comparatively 
much of recitative — or it is at least slow and wind- 
ing, like much of the Scottish music : hence what is 
commonly termed among the English the Scotch 
drawl. The idiomatic inflection and drawl, or the 
national peculiarities of recitative, are the most obs- 
tinate diflftculties that the natives of Scotland have 
to contend with in learning English pronunciation. 
Many of them never surmount these nationalities 
any more than those of a different sort ; and they 
are so influential that it is impossible to be wholly 
free from them within the limits of their native 
country, or in constant contact with those natives of 



Scotland in whom they predominate. - Even the 
English are perceived to be Scotchified in their 
speech after a short residence in the North. The 
author after a short visit of two weeks in his native 
country was thought to have the Scotch twang, by 
persons whom previously he had some difficulty in 
persuading that he was not an Englishman. 

The above peculiarities seem, however, in the 
judgment of the author on the decrease, and will, 
perhaps; in time disappear. The only direction 
that can be given to persons wishing to master them, 
is to learn the English language, if possible, among 
and from English people. Persons who have always 
lived in Scotland cannot communicate what they dp 
not possess. They speak English with the Scottish 
idiom of sound or recitative commonly called accent. 

Concerning accent in the proper Enghsh accepta- 
tion, i. e. stress on a particular syllable, there is very 
little difficulty. Any individual wishing to acquire 
the English manner has only to mark those words in 
which the accent is different from his native dialect, 
and commit them to memory or practise on them 
until they are rendered familiar and easy. Where 
there is a difference it consists uniformly (we do not 
remember a single exception) in the Scottish being 
more to the right or towards the end of the word 
than the English accent — particularly when a verb. 
Thus, ComTort, Comfor't, Sen'tence, Senten'ce, Res-. 
cue, Rescu'e, &c. When the vowel in the last sylla- 
ble of a verb is long, it is almost uniformly accented 



273 

in the Scottish dialect ; as, criticise, catechise, &c., 
pronounced hreeteseeze, katekeeze, or, in imitation 
of the English manner, kreetesize. 

But the grand difference between the two dialects, 
is in the quality or sound of the vowels ; many that 
are long in the one are short in the other, and vice 
versa : coach box for example, is usually pronounced 
in Scotland coch box ; post office^ post office 5 which 
is an inversion of the English mode as to the length 
and shortness of the vowels. The proper remedy in 
this, as in accent, is to mark in a pronouncing Dic- 
tionary all the words which differ, and commit them 
to memory, or practise on them till they become 
familiar. 

It is not so much, however, in an inverted use of 
the long and short vowels as in the quality of the 
vow el sounds, that the one dialect differs from the 
other. In this the diversity is more striking and 
complete than easily explained or accounted for. It 
may in a general way be affirmed, that all the long 
sounds of the vowels are longer, and that all the 
short sounds of the vowels are shorter as pronounced 
by English than as pronounced by Scottish speakers. 
It is impossible to give a distinct idea or true notion 
of the quality of vowel sounds by written description ; 
but the learner should, as the first step, acquire from 
vocal exemplification a correct pronunciation of all 
the English vowels and diphthongs. It is from not 
having jDroperly attended to this, that many public 
speakers in Scotland have a mongrel, strange, dis- 

T 



274 

cordant pronunciation, possessing neither the ease of 
a natural mapner, nor the euphony of either the 
English or the Scottish dialect. 

It is worthy of notice, perhaps, that the natives of 
Scotland, like the Irish, Welsh, Germans and others, 
naturally use the throat, or gutturalize more than the 
English, and pronounce h and r with greater force. 
These differences account in a great measure for the 
superior sweetness and ease of the genuine English 
pronunciation. 



END OF THE INTRODUCTION. 



Printed by G. Smallfield, Hackney/, 



^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




003 243 410 1 



